Searching for a Climate Solution (Part 1): A Short Primer on the Stakes and Prospects for Glasgow

When the Paris Agreement was announced at the 21st Convention of the Parties (COP 21) in 2015, the world celebrated its first binding global agreement. Reaching this milestone took almost 25 years of negotiation amongst developed and developing countries (see Insert 1 – a brief history climate change). However, five years on, greenhouse gas (GHGs) concentrations continue to rise. Without commitments in Glasgow for deeper and faster reduction, the world still faces climate disaster.

Before the Paris Agreement, scientific consensus was that to keep global warming within 2°C by 2100, atmospheric concentration of GHGs must not exceed 450 parts per million (ppm) of CO₂e¹ . The world reached 454 ppm CO₂e in 2004² and has since exceeded that level. (Fig. 1) In fact, CO₂ concentrations, which are the largest contributor to GHGs, are now are at the highest level in over 800,000 years³.

Fig 1: GHG concentration since 1700

As the world already overshot the 450ppm CO₂e threshold, in order to stay within the 2°C warming “carbon budget⁴", annual global GHG emissions need to drop from 55 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Gt CO₂e) in 2018 to 41 Gt CO₂e by 2030 and zero by 2100⁵. Getting a global agreement to achieve those radical reductions depends on the success of COP 26 in Glasgow scheduled for November 2021.

Although the differences may seem small between 1.5°C and 2°C warming by 2100, it poses significant risks to nature as well as human life, health, economic growth, and geopolitical stability. Fig.2 illustrates how if warming exceeds 2°C, the impact on various areas dramatically worsens.

Fig 2: A few examples of impacts of 1.5°C and 2°C warming

The scientific foundation behind climate change is not recent. In the late 1800s, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted that climate change would occur due to changes in physical chemistry in the earth’s atmosphere. He calculated that cutting CO₂ in half would produce an ice age, whilst doubling it would warm the planet by 5-6°C⁶. Despite Arrhenius’ observation it took almost a century of increasing emissions for the world to forge the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 to agree to work toward controlling emissions and limiting global warming.

Under the framework of the UNFCCC, over the next 20 years, climate scientists (the IPCC), thousands of national and international public sector leaders, and a host of private sector and civil society stakeholders gathered at COPs and a host of related meetings attempting to create a global architecture to rein in GHGs whilst preserving growth. The Kyoto Protocol reached in 1997 was a milestone. It only required specific actions amongst 37 countries and the European Union, however, and it ultimately failed to deliver the expected results. The Paris Agreement at COP 21 marked the first time virtually all developed and developing countries agreed to binding commitments aimed to limit average global warming to 2°C whilst pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C⁷.

How did the negotiators at COP 21 achieve a binding agreement that had eluded their predecessors for 20 years? Fundamentally, they were successful because they resolved the previously intractable “Iron Triangle” of climate change negotiations.

From the early COPs in the 1990s including the Kyoto Protocol (COP 3, 1997), through the nearly successful effort in Copenhagen (COP 15, 2009), negotiators struggled with the same major issues. Those can be summarised along three dimensions of an “Iron Triangle”: Ambition-Equity-Capacity.

Fig 3: The “Iron Triangle” of climate change negotiations

• Ambition: Both developed and developing countries have to make ambitious efforts to reduce emissions. In 1990, almost 80% GHG emissions were from the developed world⁸, but almost 90% of growth between 2000 and 2018 has been from the developing countries⁹.


• Equity: What is a fair way to share the burden? Specifically, a) How do we allocate reductions across countries? (transnational equity); and b) How to allocate and reduce unequal burdens on populations, providing a “just transition” for groups that will be disproportionately affected?
  
  Transnational equity has always been a contentious issue between developed and developing countries. What is the “fair” basis to decide emission reduction targets depends on one’s perspective (Fig. 4). If this is done by current annual emissions, then China would need to cut the most. If this is done by current annual emissions per capita, then high carbon developed countries such as the US, Russia or Australia would have to cut the most. If by historical per capita emissions, then Europe and North America should bear the heaviest burden. Developing countries have much lower current and historical emissions per capita and thus believe it is unfair to be asked to bear extra burden to solve a problem that the developed countries (mostly Europe and North America) created in the past 150 years, especially if cutting emissions will impose growth constraints and prevent millions from escaping poverty.


• Capacity: Do we have the means to cut? Many developing countries lack the experience, technology, and finance to develop less carbon intensive energy systems and business models at the pace required to meet the 2°C target. Thus, mechanisms to transfer funds and technology are critical to any climate agreement.

Fig 4: What is a fair way to allocate carbon budgets?

COP 21 was able to solve the “Iron Triangle” and forge an agreement by balancing all three factors ¬– Ambition, Equity, and Capacity. Countries were empowered to establish their own “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs) appropriate to their circumstance including their stage of national development (Fig.5).

Fig 5: Example Nationally Determined Contributions from various countries¹⁰

In addition, to improve Equity and increase the Capacity of developing countries, developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion annually starting in 2020 to finance climate change mitigation initiatives¹¹.

Achieving the NDCs agreed at Paris will not keep warming below 2°C. Best estimates indicate that even if all of the current NDCs are achieved, the planet will still warm by 2.4 - 2.7°C (Fig. 6). At Paris, leaders recognised this shortfall and agreed to reconvene at COP 26 (Glasgow, 2021) to assess progress, increase the ambition to achieve the 2°C, and, if possible, get closer to 1.5°C.

Fig. 6: Global greenhouse gas emissions and warming scenarios

In the 1990s when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, the scientific consensus was that the world could stay within 2°C warming by reducing GHG emissions by 0.5% annually until 2100. (See purple line in Fig.6). Because Kyoto and subsequent COPs failed to rein in emissions growth, however, instead of falling by 0.5% per year, total emissions grew by about 1.5% per year from 1990 to 2018 (see black “historical emissions” line in Fig.6), pushing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs from 417 to 496 ppm¹². Starting from this higher level means that COP 26 in Glasgow must achieve commitments to more drastic reductions to stay within the 2°C or 1.5°C warming targets (see green and blue areas in Fig.6).

Current best estimates indicate that to stay within 2°C warming will require annual global GHG reductions of 2.7% per year until 2100¹³. To put that in perspective, COVID-19’s unprecedented impact on economies (especially travel, tourism, and mobility) is projected to reduce 2020’s global GHG emissions by 4.6%¹⁴. This means that we would need the equivalent of a global pandemic effect every other year to keep emissions in line. Can the world really reduce global carbon emissions in such a drastic manner – without a global pandemic’s economic damage? This is especially true when many existing business models and national strategies for energy are still reliant on fossil fuels for energy and unsustainable agricultural practices for food.

The above is not to cast gloom on the prospects for success in Glasgow at COP 26. Rather, it seeks to clearly illustrate the enormous challenge that the UK faces as Chair of COP 26 in forging an agreement to achieve the 2°C or better ambition — and how further delays will make the challenge even more daunting, if not impossible.

Upping the ambition and reaching an agreement at Glasgow will require bridging the Iron Triangle once again. If you were setting the odds based on success from the past, 1 win (Paris) in 25 COPs, one might not be optimistic. Some would argue that the crisis of COVID-19 will make success even harder to achieve due to financial stress and diversion of priorities.

Still, there is hope. In Part 2 of this series, we will explore five "winds of change" that working together could fundamentally shift the odds in favour of an ambitious agreement in Glasgow.