Here is the state of play of the UN climate talks in Glasgow
As this year’s UN climate talks enter their second week, negotiations on key topics are progressing steadily.
Armed with a few high-profile announcements at the start of the meeting, delegates are optimistic about the prospects for tangible progress in the fight against global warming.
Laurent Fabius, the former French foreign minister who helped forge the Paris climate agreement, said the general atmosphere had improved since the talks began on October 31 and that “most negotiators want a deal “.
But negotiators were still struggling on Saturday night to prepare a series of draft decisions that government ministers are expected to finalize in the second week of talks.
Here is the state of play in four main areas midway through the UN climate talks in Glasgow:
BEST RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE
Each Conference of the Parties, or COP, ends with a general declaration. It is as much a political declaration as it is a declaration of intent on the direction countries are taking to tackle climate change.
A wave of announcements at the start of COP26 talks in Glasgow on issues such as ending deforestation, cutting methane emissions, providing more money for green investments and phasing out l use of coal could be reflected in this final statement. Although only certain countries have signed each of these agreements, others would be encouraged to add their signature at a later date.
Affirming the goal of keeping global warming at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the turn of the century, relative to pre-industrial times, is also seen as important.
As greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the British host said he wanted the Glasgow talks “to keep 1.5 ° C alive”. One way to do this would be to encourage wealthy polluters in particular to update their emission reduction targets every one or two years, rather than every five years as the Paris Agreement now requires.
MONEY ISSUES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE
Rich countries have pledged to mobilize $ 100 billion each year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change. This goal was probably missed, much to the frustration of developing countries.
Restoring goodwill and trust between rich and poor countries on this issue requires a clear commitment to lift financial support from 2025. Answering the thorny question of who should pay for losses and losses. The damage nations face as a result of global warming that they are not responsible for is also significant, but the deal there could be elusive, observers say.
“It’s a question of finance, of finance, of finance, of finance,” said Fabius.
CARBON TRADE: A DIFFICULT TO BREAK NUT
Many negotiators and observers at climate conferences roll their eyes when they hear the words “Article 6”.
The section dealing with rules for carbon markets has become one of the trickiest parts of the Paris climate agreement to finalize.
Six years after signing the deal, however, countries seem to be making progress and there is even talk of a breakthrough on the issue that so frustrated negotiators in Madrid two years ago.
Observers say Brazil and India may be willing to drop their demands to count their old – but others say worthless – carbon credits amassed under previous deals.
The price to pay for this could be for rich countries to give poor countries a share of the proceeds of carbon market transactions to adapt to climate change. This has been a red line for the United States and the European Union so far.
A deal on Article 6 is seen as crucial as many countries and companies aim to reduce their emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2050. This requires balancing any remaining pollution with an equal amount of carbon they can tell. reliably that it is captured elsewhere, such as by forests or by technological means.
TRANSPARENCY AND RIGOR IN NATIONAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS
The Paris Agreement allows governments to set their own emission reduction targets, and many of them are in the distant future.
It is difficult to verify that countries are doing what they have committed to and that their objectives are supported by realistic measures.
China in particular has bristled at the idea of having to provide data in formats defined by other nations. Brazil and Russia, meanwhile, have resisted requests to outline in more detail the short-term measures they are taking to meet their long-term goals.