Some reflections on #COP26 as we enter the home stretch. (🧵)
1: The US-China announcement 2. Progress on Article 6 3. The draft COP decision 4. Where we go from here 5. Are we making progress, or just "blah blah blah"? 6. Bringing it all back home.
1/ The US-China announcement is well short of what is ultimately needed—but more than expected and a welcome reset after acrimony of recent months. It builds on April statement in key ways, esp. methane & coal phaseout. And it outlines several concrete areas for collaboration.
2/ Article 6 is the #ParisAgreement’s engine of international cooperation. Good to see Parties at #COP26 making progress on guidance.
AND: We must ensure that markets have high integrity. That means corresponding adjustments for 6.4ERs, and no (or sharply limited) pre-2020 CERs.
3/ The draft #COP26 decision showcases the virtues & limits of the UNFCCC.
It highlights concern, calls for greater ambition, praises collaboration.
But while exhortation is useful, execution is vital. That depends on countries (along with a strong UN transparency framework).
4/ Going forward, we urgently need countries to deliver on NDCs, not just set more ambitious ones.
To support that, we should plan now for a Global Stocktake in 2023 that promotes shared understanding among govts, business & civil society about what policies are most effective.
5/ Still, in the “Progress vs blah blah blah?” debate I’m firmly on the side of progress.
Pre-Paris, @climateactiontr projected 3.7 ºC of warming by 2100. Now it is 2.4 given 2030 NDCs, 1.8 in optimistic scenario. Not fast enough, but still significant. Every 0.1 degree counts!
6/ Of course, none of this works without US leadership and action. The infrastructure bill is a good start, but the $555 billion in the #BuildBackBetter, along with strong regulations on methane, cars & the power sector, will be vital to getting the US on track to the 2030 NDC.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A6 is the #ParisAgreement’s engine of international cooperation. It’s vital because countries can cut emissions faster & deeper together than on their own.
The decision is not perfect; no text is. But overall it's a step forward. Here’s why.
First, a glossary:
ITMO=“internationally transferred mitigation outcome” (btw 2 Parties)
6.4ER=emission reduction under new UN crediting mechanism
CORSIA=Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
CA=“corresponding adjustment" to prevent double counting
1/ The guidance has strong provisions against double counting of emissions reductions—the most important safeguard of integrity.
It requires CAs for *all* ITMOs (incl. 6.4ERs) that are authorized for use toward NDCs or “other international mitigation purposes” (including CORSIA)
Today, @CFTC, a key US financial regulator, released its first-ever climate report, looking at how climate change threatens the US financial system & the economy. I was an author.
This is big news for Wall Street & Main Street. Thread below on why ⬇️
1) The report is the first report on climate-related financial risk under the auspices of a U.S. government regulator
It immediately shifts the debate from whether climate threatens the U.S. financial system, to how to deal with that threat. bit.ly/3bSKYqB
2) There’s a LOT of credibility behind the report
The @CFTC subcommittee that authored & *unanimously* approved it includes 34 experts representing a wide range of orgs: banks, asset managers, energy & agricultural sectors, as well as environmental NGOs: cftc.gov/About/CFTCComm…
In this chilling @nytimes piece, @malcolm_john of @Heritage argues in support of unmarked federal agents occupying an American city by force to quell political dissent, against the express will of state and local governments. nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/…
This is the same malcolm_john who wrote with alarm in 2015 about “the dramatic expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, the people, and civil society.” Of course, that was about things like expanding health care, protecting public health and the environment, etc.
Apparently the blatantly unconstitutional use of force by unmarked federal agents to quell peaceful protests by American citizens doesn’t pose any concerns for him.
Jake Tapper asks about #ClimateChange and health. Bernie emphasizes impacts today and says we need to transform our energy system as soon as we can — and goes right to fossil fuel interests. #DemDebate
Tapper follows up by asking Biden whether his plan is ambitious enough because it would cost $14 trillion less than Sanders. The ideal answer would be: “The measure of ambition is not how much money we spend, but how many tons we cut.” #DemDebate#climatechange
Biden lays out key aspects of his plan: Restore EPA regs including clean car standards; Rejoin #ParisAgreement; and in a surprise devote significant funds to saving the Amazon.
The lede of this otherwise excellent story by @SominiSengupta, as well as the headline on A1 in the print version, make it sound as if the US was responsible for the failure of #COP25. That may fit the conventional narrative, but it’s wrong. nyti.ms/2PLkJaU
I’m told by a senior negotiator that the claim that the US blocked language on ambition is simply false: that was China & India. Having been in the USG, that rings true to me — and I know that enviro campaigners are often unduly paranoid about the US. But the issue runs deeper.
There’s no question that Trump and his administration have been a disaster for the planet. But at the int’l level they have undermined climate action by walking AWAY from the #ParisAgreement, not by actively interfering in the negotiations. It’s a sin of omission, not commission.
Three takeaways from #COP25, which ended earlier today in Madrid without a deal on major issues including carbon markets guidance under #Article6 of the #ParisAgreement on #climatechange:
1. #COP25 showed that the yawning gap between what citizens are demanding on climate action, and what UN negotiations are delivering, is wider than ever.
2. With no deal at #COP25, it’s now time to move on. Countries that are serious about using carbon markets to increase ambition should move forward to set their own strong rules for high-integrity international emissions trading, paving the way for faster, deeper cuts in GHGs.