#COP26 warning: There's going to be a LOT of media attention. That's very good. But it also means you're going to get a LOT of takes on what it all means.

Going to get a head start and give you THE take.

Ok, not really, but here's a framework to put the takes in their place.🧵
For the uninitiated, which I suspect is >99% of the world, COP is an annual United Nations meeting (except in pandemic years) that creates the space for countries to work together to stabilize global temperatures, adapt to the warming that's inevitable and save the planet.
Do I have your attention now? No, really, that's important. Most COP meetings are so procedurally boring that most news stories about them are equally boring. And that means most news readers don't really care about this planet-saving meeting.
It's why you get leaders like COP President @AlokSharma_RDG say this upcoming meeting it's "Make or Break" summit. Get it wrong at Glasgow and the world has no chance left to avert climate catastrophe. THE STAKES ARE HIGH.

Yes, but not really.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015, it started a clock that meant every five years countries had to raise their ambition at cutting emissions. That's because there's a HUGE gap in what countries have committed to do now and what will be needed to meet climate goals.
What are the climate goals? Paris said countries commit to keeping global warming "well below 2°C" relative to pre-industrial levels and "pursuing efforts" for 1.5°C. But left a lot of other things to be dealt with later.

Really worth reading the 16 pages unfccc.int/files/meetings…
That's what makes #COP26 a bigger deal than most other COPs. Living on a world that's 3°C warmer is VERY different from one that is 1.5°C warmer. We are 1.1°C.

Still, in the intervening years, there's been a ton of progress. Don't buy into doomism.
Now let's get into the specifics. @climate's set out the priorities for what to look out for at #COP26.

1. Higher commitments from countries
2. Rules for a global carbon market
3. $100 billion in finance for developing countries
4. Reducing coal use
5. Reducing methane emissions
That's your scorecard and your best way to judge whether #COP26 helped the world make progress. It's a much better way to judge success or failure, than just buying into some take about whether it was a success or failure.
Here's a prediction: Most takes you'll see in the next three weeks are about how it's all so difficult and eventually how COP was a failure.

In one way, they will be right. Anything we do now is not going to be enough to avoid some pretty bad impacts.
But all this FAILURE narrative is likely to obscure a very important point: AVOIDING EVERY 0.1°C OF WARMING IS A VICTORY.

We've delayed climate action for so long that there are lots of low-hanging fruit wins, within the larger failure of humanity. bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-…
I warn you about this because there will be a LOT of news copy written by journalists who have not covered climate change closely. That's not a bad thing, but it will mean the coverage is likely to be skewed toward the who won and who lost and what went wrong.
Now to more positive things. There's been a sea-change in how the business and finance world sees climate change since the Paris agreement was signed.

Typically business and finance have a side table at COP meetings. The noises they make provide political cover for governments.
#COP26 could show what business and finance can do in their own right. It's finally sunk in that climate risk is business and financial risk.

There will be big coalitions coming together making pledges. Working together to stop any one from being disadvantaged for going green.
That does not mean business and finance will not try to spin small things into big PR events. There will be a lot of greenwashing and now is the time to follow climate journalists you can trust to help you sort through it.
Whatever happens in the end, whether there is a deal on the five things below or the myriad other things that need to be sorted (like transparency around how countries report emissions), #COP26 will come to an end. Then we'll start again for #COP27.
Every win will help "make" the planet a little less "broken". Every loss will do the opposite.

So spare a thought for all the journalists who will try to get you as much of what's happening at #COP26 as possible. It's going to be a tough one regardless.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Akshat Rathi

Akshat Rathi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkshatRathi

21 Oct
So what to make of the leaked documents that show fossil-fuel rich countries trying to change the language of UN science reports?

Such a scandal, right? Not so quick. But there are important takeaways. 🧵 unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/10/21/lea…
First of all, as the importance of climate change grows, it's great to see stories that dig into the procedural nitty gritty. It helps bring transparency to a complicated process that involves not just hundreds of scientists but also thousands of diplomats. So kudos on the story!
Why does the process matter? Building science reports under the IPCC framework is quite a unique operation. A big report collates the best climate science done in the preceding 5-6 years. Then there's a much shorter "summary for policymakers" that gets reviewed by all countries.
Read 15 tweets
16 Sep
Are you overwhelmed with climate-related news? With climate week next week and COP26 next month, it's about to get a lot busier.

@climate has created a way to follow your favorite topics. Links in 🧵
If you'd like general updates from our writers, best sign up to our daily newsletter. You'll get a daily digest of stories and interesting essays right in your inbox bloomberg.com/account/newsle…

Hear from @NatBullard @eroston @LauraMillanL @kmac @GernotWagner @Jess_Shankleman & more
If you'd like updates about how the transport sector is being cleaned up, from cars to pick ups and tractors to planes. Sign up to the daily Hyperdrive newsletter bloomberg.com/account/newsle…

Hear from @danahull @colinmckerrache @nicola_news @JamesTFrith @gablova @dimitrakny & more
Read 8 tweets
9 Aug
Do not miss it. The IPCC report has made the strongest case yet to cut methane emissions at scale and quickly.

Why? We need jump a few hurdles to understand. 🧵bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
IPCC scientists found that humans have already pumped enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to heat the planet 1.5°C—a crucial threshold in the Paris Agreement.

But observable warming is only 1.1°C. So what's happening?
Tiny aerosols, much of which create deadly air pollution, are stopping all of the sun's light from reaching the surface. That means greenhouse gases, which have the ability to retain the heat, aren't retaining as much as they would without the aerosols.
Read 6 tweets
9 Aug
Breaking: The IPCC report is out. Scientists reach “unequivocal” consensus on human-caused climate change.

@eroston and I break it down for you: bloomberg.com/news/features/…

Thread below with five takeaways
1. The last decade was hotter than any period in 125,000 years. CO2 levels are higher than any time in 2 million years. Methane and nitrous oxide are higher than any time in 800,000 years. And almost all of it is because of human activities, largely from burning fossil fuels.
2. Scientists can now link specific weather events to human-made climate change. They can now point to some extreme weather events, such as the heat dome over North America earlier this year, and say it would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change.
Read 6 tweets
4 Aug
Too often the word "unproven" or "nascent" is found near the phrase "carbon capture". But it's wrong.

You can use "not at a large enough scale", "tied to fossil-fuel interests", "extending the fossil-fuel era", "necessary but not sufficient" or even "expensive"...
Carbon capture technology, which traps carbon dioxide from power plants or factories, has been in commercial use for 50 years and it's used to bury 35+ million tons of CO2 each year today.

What more do you need it to be not "unproven" and "nascent"?
I understand the frustration among many who look at oil and gas industry's attempts to use the excuse of scaling carbon capture as a way of finding excuses to reduce emissions.

But that's not the technology's fault. It's the industry's fault. Target your fury to the right place.
Read 15 tweets
20 Jul
The photos/videos coming from the flood in Henan province in China are quite scary. mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fVyEZ5rLOQSZ… ht @KarolineCQKan
Henan province is home to 94 million people. The capital Zhengzhou received 200 mm of rainfall in one hour on Tuesday.

This unconfirmed video is thought to be from inside the subway in the province.

More about the floods here: reuters.com/business/envir…
Read 21 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(