‘Without strong commitment, Bristol’s climate strategy will end up being “blah, blah, blah”‘

From October 31 to November 12 this year, representatives of countries from all over the world descended on Glasgow for COP26 – the annual United Nations climate summit.

Afterwards, opinion about the event was mixed; Greta Thunberg called the event a “greenwash festival”, whereas Boris Johnston called it “game-changing”.  Professor Dan Lunt from the University of Bristol was there, and here he gives his personal reflections on the summit, and on how Bristol is shaping up to meet its climate targets…

I was very fortunate to be able to attend COP26 this year, with access provided by the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute. This was my first COP meeting, so I had little idea what to expect, but even before the negotiations had started, a few key things were clear:

1. In 2015, 196 countries signed the “Paris Agreement”, committing to keep global warming to below two degrees, and ideally to 1.5 degrees.
2. The vast majority of global warming so far has been caused by the richest countries in the world, whereas it is the poorest countries that will feel the largest impacts.
3. Twelve years ago in Copenhagen, the richest countries in the world had agreed to pay $100 billion per year of “climate finance” to the poorest countries by 2020, but this target had not been met.

So, the stage was set for two weeks of tense, but crucially important negotiations.

As the summit progressed, successive drafts of the final agreement were released on the UN website, and then debated, and then re-released.  Countries argued over the fine wording – should nations be “requested” or “urged” or “invited” to comply with various requests?  Should a “dialogue” or a “facility” group be set up?  Finally, after two weeks of tense negotiations, the “Glasgow Climate Pact” was finally agreed upon.

For me, there was a mixture of successes and failures of COP26:

Successes

• A major achievement was that the “Paris Rulebook” was finally agreed upon.  This sets out in excruciating detail the technical details on regulations around carbon markets, and regular reporting of climate data by all countries.
• Instead of countries being required to update these pledges in another 5 years time, they will now be required to update them every year.  This strengthening of the so-called “ratchet mechanism” is seen by many as likely to result in greater cuts to greenhouse gases.
• Several groups made statements on climate-related issues such as deforestation, methane, and coal, and other new groups were formed, such as the “Beyond Oil and Gas” alliance.
• There was a pledge put in place to “at least double” adaptation finance from 2019 to 2025.

Failures:

As at many previous COPs, much of the negotiations, and the main sticking points, were around “climate finance”.  Many countries were hoping for a “Loss and Damage facility”, but instead the issue was kicked down the road by instead setting up a “Dialogue”.

In an early draft of the Pact, there was a commitment to “accelerate the phasing out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”, in the final draft this was significantly weakened to “accelerate the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”, providing significant wriggle-room for nations on this key commitment.

Although many countries did update their climate pledges at COP26, the world is still not on target to reach the Paris target of 1.5 degrees.  Prior to COP26 we were headed for 2.6 degrees of warming by the year 2100; after COP26 this number is now 2.3 degrees.

Overall, probably no one is happy with the overall outcome COP26.  But at least an agreement was made, and mechanisms were put in place to ratchet up ambition faster than before.  History will be the judge – by the end of the 2020’s, if emissions are decreasing rapidly then COP26 in Glasgow may well be hailed as a turning point; however, if they are still rising or only falling slowly then it will be considered a failure.

For now, 1.5 degrees is still “alive”, but is on life support.

What does all this mean for Bristol?  Marvin Rees and the Bristol City Council have put together a detailed climate strategy, coupled with an incredibly ambitious target – for the city to be “net-zero” by 2030.

If Bristol were a country, it would have the most ambitious target in the world! (e.g. the UK as a whole has a target of 2050).  However, at present, there are relatively few signs of actual policy decisions to back up these targets.

For example, it is very hard to see how the expansion of Bristol airport can be compatible with a net-zero target by 2030. The council could put in place “nudging” policies that encourage a shift to more sustainability, such as strong energy-efficiency requirements for new-build housing – cutting emissions but also saving residents money.

Such policies do not require a financial investment by the council but do require a vision and bravery to stand up to other vested interests.  Even more, progress can be made if the central government provides more “green” funding to local councils, enabling for example more electric vehicle charging points, or retro-fitting home insulation.

Bristol has a real opportunity to be UK leaders, and even world leaders, in the energy and sustainability transition.  However, without strong policy commitments from local government and the Mayoral Office, Bristol’s climate strategy, however ambitious, will end up being just “Blah, blah, blah”.

Dan Lunt is a professor of climate science at the University of Bristol, in the School of Geographical Sciences

Main photo courtesy of Dan Lunt

Read more: Is Bristol a leader in sustainability?

Listen to the latest Bristol24/7 Behind the Headlines podcast: