Skip to content

COP26 heading for the rocks?

June 18, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

 

image

Unsurprisingly, the reluctance of Western governments to deliver its pledge of an annual $100 billion transfer fund to more than 100 developing countries is threatening to unravel COP26.

“A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement….”

The West’s geopolitical own goal also provides China, India and other emerging nations a rock solid reason to reject Western pressure on any new or binding commitments.

If Biden, Boris and the EU thought emerging and developing nations would simply cave to their unrealistic Net Zero demands they should think again. It’s not going to happen.

The US and EU leaders have tried and failed to square this circle for the last 30 years. It’s unlikely to go away for decades to come.

There is now a growing risk that COP26 will end in yet another COP-flop, throwing the climate campaign back to the 2009 Copenhagen fiasco.

From the FT:

Weeks of negotiations were overshadowed by cost of meeting demands of Paris agreement
Tensions over climate finance threaten to derail this year’s COP26 summit after weeks of preliminary UN deliberations yielded little agreement over how to proceed with core principles of the Paris climate accord
The downbeat conclusion fuels further disappointment about progress on halting global warming, after the G7 leaders summit in Cornwall failed to produce specific plans for new climate funding.
A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement.
The shortfall in funding also sets the scene for a series of difficult discussions in November at the COP26 in Glasgow when it comes to agreeing new goals for climate finance.
“It is unlikely that rich countries hit the target of mobilising $100bn per year by 2020,” said Amar Bhattacharya, co-chair of the UN’s Independent Expert Group on Climate Finance and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, although official figures are yet to be tallied formally.
At a time when government coffers have already been emptied by the coronavirus pandemic, reaching agreement on climate finance — public and private funding to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to climate change — is more contentious than ever.
During three weeks of tense negotiations at the UN Climate Change intersessional meetings, which concluded on Thursday, an undercurrent of discontent over climate finance stymied a number of discussions on topics such as carbon markets and transparency.
“The issue of climate finance still remains the most difficult part of all these negotiations,” said Molwyn Joseph, environment minister for Antigua. “I do not believe that particular aspect was dealt with as it should have been.” Rich countries donated around $80bn in 2018, according to UN figures.

Full story (£)

 

When the $100bn promise was made at Copenhagen in 2009, it was a classic case of kicking the can down the road, in the hope that something would come along in the meantime. Obama was of course desperate to walk away with something. Meanwhile the developing countries never expected the money to arrive, so would never have to commit to reducing emissions.

A further problem is that there is no agreed way of measuring the money given. In reality, although a figure of $80bn is given , there is very little new money provided, certainly not in the UK’s case. Instead it is simply reshuffled from other aid spending. Much of it too is in the form of commercial loans, which need repaying. Governments in the developing world certainly won’t regard any of this as fulfilling the Copenhagen pledge.

It is actually pretty easy predicting the outcome of COP26. After long hours of extra time, an “Agreement” will be announced, which will boil down to the West agreeing to targets already announced. Meanwhile the rest of the world will carry on with business as usual.

And in five years time, they will still be asking where the money is.

28 Comments
  1. Andrew Mark Harding permalink
    June 18, 2021 5:01 pm

    Its a total farce! It beggars belief that they are so stupid that they believe their own hype!

  2. GeoffB permalink
    June 18, 2021 5:10 pm

    They have to come up with a simple formula, such as each developed country paying x% of GNI (gross national income) like the 0.7% that UN expects for overseas aid. This was £9.3 billion in 2020 for UK, Then they need to decide how to share it out to the developing countries, say y% of some poverty index for each one.
    As their are 195 countries signed up to the Paris agreement, this should take a very long time to agree, if ever!!!!

    • Sobaken permalink
      June 18, 2021 8:00 pm

      The better question is how this money is going to be spent. I presume what doesn’t go into the pockets of corrupt officials will be used to build wind and solar power in the developing countries. Even if you all the money reached its intended destination, and if you could build a lot of wind/solar installations on just 100 billion (you can’t, at the cheapest rates it buys maybe 100-150 GW), that build out is of little help to the poor countries who can’t even afford coal generated electricity, let alone expensive double grid with gas backup for the intermittent generation (and the COP won’t provide the funds for gas power of course).

  3. saveenergy permalink
    June 18, 2021 5:12 pm

    “COP26 heading for the rocks? ”
    I do hope so … but there’s a lot of face to be saved !

    • Jordan permalink
      June 18, 2021 7:44 pm

      The news that COP26 is heading for the rocks is a good excuse for a dash of my Mannochmore single malt to hit the rocks.

    • Matt Dalby permalink
      June 20, 2021 11:56 pm

      If it looks unlikely that any agreement will be reached they have the option of using a likely increase in Covid cases in the autumn to save face by postponing the summit for another year.

  4. Keith permalink
    June 18, 2021 5:37 pm

    Musn’t forget idiot Johnson is there this year. He won’t worry about giving away more of our money so he can show off.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      June 18, 2021 5:52 pm

      Can’t wait to see his new gender-neutral-feminine side!

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    June 18, 2021 5:50 pm

    Well, let’s negotiate this:
    1. The West is committing itself to wastespend trillions in NZC targets.
    2. Many of the developing nations (China, India, etc) are loth to follow suit and wish to keep their FFs.
    3. The West should keep their CC aid spending to offset the extra C that they will need to mitigate caused by the defaulting nations.
    4. The West pours this money into building loads of nuclear power stations and the economic resurgence that follows will allow the West to fund whatever boondogles they feel developing nations need (other than those with space programs).
    5. And then, I came to.

  6. REM permalink
    June 18, 2021 6:33 pm

    There certainly needs to be a reassessment of what a “developing country” is. We appear to have had an ace negotiator on that one.

    • Gamecock permalink
      June 18, 2021 10:06 pm

      Agreed. How much time do they get? I was told they were “developing” 50 years ago.

  7. markl permalink
    June 18, 2021 6:43 pm

    If they haven’t figured it out by now the idea of handing money to a quango for distribution without audit to whoever they choose for whatever they want based on a faulty premise isn’t a sound investment.

  8. Phoenix44 permalink
    June 18, 2021 7:02 pm

    Both sides of this argument make the basic error of assuming “money” is “wealth””. You can have all the money in the world, but if there’s nothing to buy because there’s no production, youa re as poor as ever.

  9. Broadlands permalink
    June 18, 2021 8:30 pm

    And none of that money will be used to take any CO2 out of the atmosphere to lower the planet’s temperature. Reducing emissions and using renewables does not remove GHGs. Increasing subsidies for direct air capture and storage will need to be added to the cost of all of this.

    • June 18, 2021 10:09 pm

      Get a grip. Temperature and CO2 graphs have no long term correlation.

      • Gamecock permalink
        June 18, 2021 10:21 pm

        Zactly.

        All claimed temperatures for the earth before 1979 are fake. It was the satellite era that brought us actual global mean temperatures. A graph of GMT vs CO2 concentration starting in 1979 shows both increasing overall, but radical flux of GMT during the period. I.e., no correlation. GMT does not move with CO2 concentration.

  10. Gamecock permalink
    June 18, 2021 10:11 pm

    ‘Unsurprisingly, the reluctance of Western governments to deliver its pledge of an annual $100 billion transfer fund to more than 100 developing countries is threatening to unravel COP26.’

    We learned a long time ago that aid is destructive. Yes, DESTRUCTIVE. It disincentivizes local development. Why build a textile plant when the West is sending you ships full of clothes?

    Stop the ‘climate’ transfers. AND AID!

  11. It doesn't add up... permalink
    June 18, 2021 11:12 pm

    Just listened to the GB News segment on the cladding scandal. Actually a very sane contribution from Rebecca Long-Bailey, slightly to my surprise. Moreover, they managed to get some slight movement from the government, limiting the maximum contribution from leaseholders of buildings between 11 and 18 metres to £50,000 – as if that is affordable. Long-Bailey mentioned the overall costs as being of the order of £15bn for affected properties and 700,000 affected people, with the government having until now promised just £5bn in funding. With these kinds of figures you really have to wonder how on earth they think they can secure the net zero insulation investment that is “required” – or even if they have any clue on how to make insulation that is safe and works.

    Following on from Andrew Neil’s pointing up the difficulties of funding trillions for Net Zero in his interview with Sunak, you can only hope that some of the links are made. If we can’t afford to fund Net Zero for ourselves, we certainly can’t afford to fund it for everyone else via the the aid budget.

  12. June 19, 2021 3:06 am

    We need to get rid of the UN

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/05/the-paris-agreement/

  13. June 19, 2021 7:02 am

    Chaamjamal,

    I think Mr Trump felt the same way, but with him out of power (For now anyway?) are there any other politicians who tthink the same way?
    It will take a lot of political will to dismantle it?

  14. tomo permalink
    June 19, 2021 7:09 am

    I see Alok Sharma is showcasing his dunce credentials by talking up his enthusiasm for Albert Gore on the BBC web site.

    see the COP26 web site says:

    We may still be liable for:

    death or personal injury arising from our negligence
    fraudulent misrepresentation
    any other liability which cannot be excluded or limited under applicable law

    In all, the COP26 gig is sliding down the slippery slope of gormless mediocrity familiar to anybody with a bunch of “B Ark” folk running the local council.

    I’m wondering how much all this is costing taxpayers… FoI anybody?

  15. tomo permalink
    June 19, 2021 7:11 am

    Join The Race to Zero!

    https://racetozero.unfccc.int/

    • dave permalink
      June 19, 2021 8:32 am

      RSS update for ‘global temperatures’ for May shows ‘no change’ from April, in agreement with UAH.

      Another cold wave for most of North America coming down from Arctic on Sunday.

      • tomo permalink
        June 19, 2021 8:43 am

        Zero °C in June for some ‘Merikans then ?

  16. tomo permalink
    June 19, 2021 8:44 am

    Zero °C in June for some ‘Merikans then ?

    • Gamecock permalink
      June 20, 2021 11:51 am

      ‘Mericans don’t get °C temps; ours are all Fahrenheit.

  17. Coeur de Lion permalink
    June 19, 2021 9:17 am

    Erm, what was agreed at COP16? COP23? COP19? COP21? Demmed if I can remember. Oh, I do remember the Copenhagen COP – that’s the one that fell apart because the IPCC’s poster child the Climategate Hockey Stick was exposed as a fraud. But what was the number? 22? 20? Oh dear, losing my marbles.

  18. June 19, 2021 9:46 am

    COP 26 going downhill already…rows about lack of finance and Covid jabs…

    Climate change: UN virtual talks make little progress
    By Matt McGrath
    Environment correspondent

    Exhausted delegates have concluded three weeks of virtual climate negotiations with little progress on key issues.

    The UN subsidiary bodies meeting was meant to clear the decks ahead of the major COP26 gathering in Glasgow in November.

    Published 1 day ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57520510
    – – –
    Britain thinks it can dash round the world vaccinating thousands of pointless ‘delegates’. For what, in the end?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: