First thing is, not that much has changed since the previous drafts - science, 'urgency', 'concern', request of Parties for new NDCs in 2022, adaptation finance, all still in - and placeholders still for long-term finance and implementation
Few big ones. Coal and fossil fuel subsidies still in, but in an expanded paragraph that also talks of advancing clean energy transition
I think many will see this as a strengthening because it includes building clean as well as curbing fossils and recognises 'just transition', while also - crucially IMHO - retaining coal phase-out specifically
However some countries have been pushing for mention of oil and gas phase-out in addition to coal and for removal of 'inefficient', and will be disappointed. BUT - notable, I think, that this has not been a red line for Saudi, Oz, Russia and other big fossil economies
If you'd told me at the Paris summit six years ago that we'd see this in a COP outcome document I would have expressed a great deal of doubt
I think the other significant change is on Loss and Damage, where we retain language recognising it as a serious right-here-right-now issue, but add clauses on something new:
Now: the broad G77/China bloc of developing nations wanted more than a dialogue, namely a 'standalone facility' with a clearer commitment to finance
Questions, therefore: will they settle for a 'dialogue'? Has the US given its approval to the language above, or is the UK Presidency trying to push it with this language? (I would guess the former)
We'll await the reactions but this definitely takes us further than we were before #COP26. It opens the door a little wider than the previous draft to a situation where developed nations have to take Loss and Damage seriously, including with finance
Elsewhere, the process for settling the Global Goal on Adaptation seems to have reached a decent conclusion unfccc.int/documents/3110… - and Glasgow has its name on something, the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme
So: the two outstanding issues appear to be long-term finance and Article Six - for the second of these, here's the assessment from @ECIU_UK's @mattadamw
I'm more optimistic than at this time yesterday that we'll be out of here sometime today - but I'm wondering whether we'll be taking in our bags a finalised Article 6, or whether that has to wait for next time (again)
Update - lots of reaction coming in from climate-vulnerable countries on the new #COP26#LossAndDamage language - and it’s not positive - eg
As we approach the final hours of #COP26, it's worth asking what impact it'll have on the UK
Firstly, the UK has finally hosted one of these things, 32 years after then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s call for a UN climate treaty margaretthatcher.org/document/107817. The UK has always had an important role in the process but hosting this summit makes the connection more visceral…
…especially as it comes at a time when public concern on climate change and support for a zero-carbon transition have never been higher - that's true globally too btw theguardian.com/environment/20…
THREAD: The UK government says it wants a successful #COP26. Great. But from the government’s position, the word ‘success’ has two distinct meanings
In one, #COP26 is a genuine success, making a meaningful contribution to tackling climate change. In the other, it isn’t a genuine success, but enough happens to allow Boris Johnson to claim that it is
Why flag this now? Because if Week 1 at #COP26 was about one thing, it was about news management. And there is doubtless a lot more to come
Now #COP26 is upon us it's noticeable how many political journalists are writing and broadcasting about it, which (speaking as a former science and environment hack who spent many hours inside the BBC arguing for climate change coverage across the board) is very welcome
But... something is going slightly awry, and I want to highlight it now before the serious stuff begins
This is not the UK's summit, nor @BorisJohnson's summit. Leaders of other nations will not set climate policies according to what he asks them to do. The most important consequence of failure to make progress will not be Boris Johnson's reputation
To Glasgow, today, for #COP26, with the floods in Cumbria bringing a distinct feeling of déjà vu...
Six years ago, just after the last massively important UN climate summit (in Paris) got underway, Cumbria was at the centre of another big flood, caused by Storm Desmond and a couple of close relatives
Some of the imagery is very familiar - Carlisle 2015, Keswick 2021
Odd how? Firstly, because almost no-one is now talking about a meat tax. Why? Because a bunch of research over the last few years has shown how eye-wateringly unpopular it would be - so it's basically off the political menu
For example the recent Citizens' Assembly concluded dietary changes should be voluntary and achieved through education and choices, not compulsion - helping local farms along the way, and not penalising the poor climateassembly.uk/report/read/fi…