Immediately after the end of COP26, on a Saturday evening in Glasgow, my social media exploded with disappointment – about the fact that as a world we (still) don’t dare to say farewell to fossil fuels; the fact that different countries have yet to set stricter targets; the fact that the Netherlands is calling for ‘action’ but taking little itself.
Yet the Glasgow Climate Pact is still incredibly important to me. Not because of what has not been achieved, but because of what has been. Here are some key points:
- The Paris ‘Rulebook’ has been adopted after six years of negotiations. Among other things, this means that there are sound rules for CO2 emissions trading worldwide and that double counting of emission reductions is prevented.
- A number of financially strong countries – including the Netherlands, after considerable social pressure – have indicated that they will no longer invest in foreign fossil energy projects. This has to be arranged by the end of 2022, so the Netherlands needs to get started on it immediately.
- The role of young people and intergenerational justice are high on the agenda. This lends confidence to the fact that young people will increasingly sit at the table in the future – which is a good basis for raising ambitions.
Three missing points
Of course, the Glasgow Climate Pact is imperfect – if only because of the postponing of tighter CO2 reduction targets until COP27, which will be held next year. There are also matters that require attention but that were not included in the agreement. Here are the three gaps that stood out to me the most:
- Emissions from aviation and shipping are still missing. With the expected growth in both aviation and shipping, and the little international guidance available for these sectors, their emissions will increase. Because these emissions are difficult to allocate to a specific country, they are not included in the proposed national emission reductions. De Correspondent published a strong story (in Dutch) about how difficult it is to manage the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
- The amount of (critical) materials required is not included as a prerequisite. Without large-scale energy savings, rapid emission reductions require sustainable technologies. These sustainable technologies require critical metals, as we showed this summer in our exploration Circular Energy Transition (Circulaire Energietransitie in Dutch). In addition to the limited availability of some of these metals, their sustainable extraction is crucial.
- Adjusting the Western consumption pattern, which has a devastating impact on the world, is not mentioned in the Pact, even though many countries from the Global South requested it. These countries’ frustration is comparable to our frustration with the last-minute change from phase-out to phase-down of the use of coal, at India’s request.
Our own responsibility
In my surroundings I hear a lot of frustration about COP26 and other climate summits: “It’s just talk,” they say. That’s true, but at the same time, talking to each other is the only way to achieve cooperation and real change in international politics. And whether we like it or not, international political change takes time.
At the same time, I also understand that climate change won’t wait – it requires action in the short term. For that I mainly look at us, as Europeans and as Dutch people: historically speaking, we don’t just have the highest emissions, but we have been developing for several centuries using raw materials from other countries.
So I see it as our responsibility to be the first to get started. Addressing China (which, incidentally, can attribute a large proportion of its emissions to the production of our consumer goods) isn’t helping. If we can really show that it is possible to maintain prosperity and well-being while reducing CO2 emissions, we can help the rest of the world do the same.
Our limiting belief
We are one of the richest countries on earth, with the highest quality of life. But we are increasingly realizing that we can maintain that quality of life with less. And we have access to the most advanced technologies for the things we do want to continue with.
What’s the biggest challenge? Our own limiting belief that we can’t do more. This can be seen in our language, which is increasingly full of frustration and disappointment. How often do we tell each other that we’re having such a hard time, that it is so busy and that we are angry and disappointed in politics and the rest of the world?
We can change that language, too. We have an incredibly rich, beautiful life, in which we don’t need to worry about food or a roof over our heads. We are in the midst of a pandemic, and the vast majority of people are surviving it. We can take a vacation whenever we want.
We can also set aside our limiting beliefs. We really can organize our lives in such a way that we limit climate change and thereby enable a healthy and happy life for future generations. The choice is ours.