Thread by @_richardblack

THREAD - initial thoughts on the texts dropped this morning at #COP26 and unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/…

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

https://twitter.com/mattadamw/status/1459456428670959618?s=20

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

https://twitter.com/SaleemulHuq/status/1459460191834062851

. Looking like the UK Presidency (and by implication the US) will have to think again on this