More questions than answers

COP26 has been bringing together parties from across the world to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Open University has official observer status at COP26 and is learning from the conference to inform the university’s wider sustainability mission and inspire students and staff to take action. Here are some of the conference’s highlights, as told by our Open University observers. 

COP26 Diary - 11 November: Sabine Gundel, Associate Lecturer, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

 My first session of the day was a plenary on Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV), was very well attended and opened by the COP26 president, Alok Sharma. The session was entitled ‘ZEV – a one way road’. While I was listening to the enthusiastic prospects of zero emission cars and HGV’s and the rapid phasing out of diesel and petrol engines in near future, I wondered why this session did not explore more critical issues, such as the constant increase of global car numbers, where new purchases only count for a small percentage. What will happen to all the ‘dirty’ cars and lorries from the developed countries? Many will end up being shipped to poor nations where they will continue to emit GHGs. What about the pollution caused by end-of-life car batteries? Will they be exported to LDCs? What about the production processes and energy sources used to fuel clean cars? While the big CEOs declare that a competitive market should be left to solve the problem. I left with more questions than answers. 

The following session brought me right into the heart of what the COP26 is about – the informal stock taking session. Article 6 was the focus of the session. Each country group took turns to reflect on the progress so far. Whether by chance or by agreement, the rich nations had the floor first. They seemed largely positive and congratulated the COP26 president on the good progress. Common timeframe for enhancing NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) was agreed by most countries apart from a small group which asked for more flexibility. They mentioned questions around the enhanced transparency framework and flagged the establishment and launch of a two-year work program on adaptation.

The comments made by G77, African countries, LDC group and OASIS was less positive. Lack of funding commitments, weak language adopted in the text and a shift from ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ towards ‘common and shared responsibilities’ were some of the concerns highlighted. For an observer like me, the negotiations still have a long way to go but time is running out.