From 31 October – 13 November
world leaders and their delegations
from nearly all countries across the
globe came together to work on the
issue of climate change. We look at
what was achieved over the course of
the conference:1
Major takeaways:
- The ratchet mechanism works: temperature alignment will continue to be wound down towards 1.5 degrees centigrade over subsequent cycles of negotiations – this is a clear indication of the direction of future policy
- The private sector has stepped up: when including all pledges
– net-zero targets and other commitments not currently
incorporated in policy – they add up to an end result of 1.8 degrees
- Carbon markets: rules on international carbon trading have
been established. Loopholes remain so caution is needed
- Civil society is unconvinced: despite COP26 yielding better
results than anyone on the inside expected, protestors and civil society have reacted negatively. Pressure to achieve 1.5 degrees has, if anything, increased. Attention to pledges and especially net-zero commitments will be strong. Companies will face reputational risk if they try to fudge net-zero pledges.
The last-minute games played by the Indian and Chinese delegations got the headlines, but the biggest result to
emerge from this COP (Conference of the Parties) was confirmation that the ratchet mechanism designed under Paris 2015 agreement works – this was its first test and it passed. National pledges wound projected temperatures down by 0.3 degrees and, what is more, those pledges will need to be updated by next year’s COP, accelerating the ratchet mechanism that would normally run on a five-year cycle.
Going into the summit the goal was to
keep the target of 1.5 degrees alive,
and this ratchet acceleration has done
that. No one expected to be able to get
national pledges (known as nationally
determined contributions or NDCs)
down to 1.5 degrees on a single cycle,
so accelerating the next cycle is a
meaningful result.
One overarching takeaway is how the
focus of these meetings has changed
– from 2 degrees and timelines of
2050 to 1.5 degrees and 2030.
This aligns the political discussions
with the science which shows that a
45% decline in emissions is required,
based on 2010 levels, by 2030 in order
to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees
(based on 2019 levels this increases
to a 50% decline). Figure 1 shows the
alignment of temperatures against
various tiers of pledges.
Figure 1: alignment of pledges
Temperature rise (degrees centigrade) | |
|---|---|
1.8 | If all NDCs, pledges and
net-zero targets and
corporate pledges agreed
at COP26 are achieved
(optimistic scenario) |
2.1 | NDCs plus the US and
China net-zero targets |
2.4 | NDCs submitted at Paris
2015 only |
2.7 | Current policy (does not
include policy proposals) |
The private sector took on more of
a role than ever before at this year’s
COP, with corporate commitments
on a number of topics. These are
summarised here:
- Deforestation: 130 countries promised to collectively halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. Countries representing 85% of global forests, including Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), backed this commitment but scepticism remains around whether it will be delivered. $12 billion in public funds for forests, and more than $7 billion in public-private investments have been committed towards this. Thirty financial institutions with more than $8.7 trillion of global assets committed to eliminate investment in activities linked to deforestation.
- Methane: led by the US and the EU, 109 countries committed to reducing methane emissions by 30% before 2030, including Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, UK, Bahrain, Uruguay, Cuba and Malaysia. China has committed to continue the discussion with the US in the first half of 2022 to focus on the specifics of enhancing measurement and mitigation of methane. Russia is a notable absence.
- Internal Combustion Engines: a group of companies and countries are working towards 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035 in leading markets and 2040 in developing markets. Members include the UK, Canada, Norway, Chile, India and Kenya, along with Ford, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover , Mercedes-Benz and Volvo.
- Innovation: COP26 saw multiple announcements on innovation in hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, steel and green hydrogen. Some of these are focused on stimulating demand rather than supply, which in turn should encourage existing producers to innovate and increase supply – “if you make it, we will buy it”.
- Oil and gas: the attention is broadening beyond coal, and new initiatives are targeting the supply side as well as demand.
- Coal: underwhelming agreements outside of South Africa’s “just transition” partnership, but the economics are starting to win this battle. For example, even under Donald Trump the US retired the most coal globally and installed the second highest capacity volumes of renewable energy globally after China. The South African mechanism provides a framework to move other coal dependent nations beyond the fuel.
- Asset management aiming for net zero: the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero announced that firms with a combined $130 trillion owned or managed have committed to net zero (through the Net Zero Asset Managers commitment, Net Zero Asset Owners and similar pledges covering nearly every corner of the financial services industry). This figure includes a large amount of doublecounting and has been widely misinterpreted. Nonetheless, it is a huge share of the world’s largest financial institutions committing to net zero – Columbia Threadneedle Investments’ AUM is included in this figure as a signatory of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.
Methane pledge – buying time
Relative to CO2, methane has 84x as
much global warming potential over a
20-year time horizon. Cutting methane
rapidly, therefore, gives the world
slightly more wiggle room on carbon.
This is desperately needed as the
latest science outlines that the world
has only eight more years of emissions
at 2019 levels to go before a 1.5 degree
carbon budget is exceeded.
The methane pledge aims for a 30%
reduction by 2030; however, the
International Energy Agency (IEA)
estimates that methane emissions
need to fall by 75% to meet net zero.2
Canada has committed to this punchy
target in the oil and gas sector which,
along with agriculture, are responsible
for the lion’s share of global methane emissions. More than 50% of
methane emissions in the oil and
gas sector can be resolved today
with current technology, while satellite
data is improving the extent to
which these emissions can be
independently tracked.
Article 6 and carbon trading
The rulebook around carbon trading
was finalised at COP26 and part of
this is relevant to corporate carbon
offsetting. These rules still have a
number of loopholes so scrutiny is
likely to remain high. We will keep
an eye on the type of carbon credits
bought by the companies we own –
especially those held in responsible
investment funds.
Carry over of low-quality credits: while
the carry-over of older, less-credible
permits from the Kyoto protocol (called
CERs) will be allowed, the situation
could have been worse. Out of a
potential four billion CER credits, only
320 million will be carried forward and
these will be clearly labelled and easy
to avoid. However, a bigger concern
is that governments could authorise
projects to continue to issue credits
(equivalent to CERs but generated from
2021-2030); but as most of these
projects are wind or hydro-related they
will at least produce clean energy, and
hence avoid emissions and generate
credits, whether or not they are eligible
under Article 6 and do not provide
“additionality”. If all governments
authorise all eligible projects to
transition into the new system under
Article 6, it is estimated 2.8 billion
carbon credits of a very low quality
would enter the system.
Double counting is (almost) out:
Before COP26, Brazil had been arguing
for the ability to double-count carbon credits. What they were suggesting,
to use a hypothetical example, was
that a carbon credit equivalent to a
tonne of carbon dioxide generated by
a forestry project in Brazil and sold
to the UK would count towards both
Brazil’s and the UK’s NDC, reducing
both by one tonne. Brazil stepped away
from this position at COP26, enabling
a conclusion, and it was agreed that
seller countries must account for all
units that are transferred to other
countries, preventing the possibility
of double counting.
However, under the carbon trading
mechanism, as opposed to bilateral
trading, there is an option for countries
to issue non-authorised credits
for “other international mitigation
purposes”, ie voluntary carbon markets
which would not be subject to the
carbon accounting adjustments to
eliminate double counting. There
was heavy debate around how this
class of credit should be used and
how much it contributes to corporate
greenwashing, with countries such as
Switzerland calling for stronger rules.
Ultimately, companies using authorised
credits towards their net-zero targets
will be seen as more credible than
those using non-authorised credits.
It will be interesting to see if carbon
credit pricing deviates according to
quality once this mechanism is fully
established, with a small number of
carbon credit rating agencies already
in existence.
Voluntary retirement of carbon
credits: it was agreed that bilateral
carbon trades between countries for
use in NDCs will only need to retire
credits on a voluntary basis. This is
weaker than hoped as cancellation of a
portion of emissions would mean more
than one tonne of carbon credits would
be required to offset one tonne of actual emissions – meaning an overall
net emission reduction. However, the
carbon trading mechanism covered in
another area of Article 6, and the area
most relevant to the private sector, will
be subject to a mandatory retirement
of 2%. Another rule impacting the
trading mechanism, but not bilateral
trades, is that 5% of proceeds from
trades under the mechanism must
be transferred to an Adaptation fund
to finance adaptation or resilience
projects in the countries already most
vulnerable to climate change.
Innovation in hard-to-abate sectors – The Glasgow Breakthrough Agenda
- Hydrogen: the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI) announced pledges of 28 companies to drive growth in the demand for, and supply of, hydrogen. This can be in four categories: supply, demand, financial support or technological support. On the demand side pledges add up to 1.6 million tons per annum (mtpa) of low-carbon hydrogen to replace grey hydrogen which is currently used in the chemical industry and refining. On the supply side the pledges add up to 18 mtpa of low-carbon hydrogen. In emissions terms this would save the equivalent of the annual emissions of Netherlands and Tunisia combined. Also, African and Latin American green hydrogen alliances are aiming to accelerate green hydrogen adoption in those areas. Namibia has already made progress with the Dutch, Belgian and German governments, with Germany committing to provide €40 million.
- Steel and cement: The UK and India led the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI), alongside Canada and Germany, which aims to drive demand for “green” steel and green cement which will in turn accelerate supply. Currently, cement and steel each account for around 7% of energyrelated emissions globally but do not have easy decarbonisation options. This is because the high temperatures required are harder (but not impossible) to achieve via electricity rather than fossil fuel energy. The most common process of steelmaking also uses coal as a reagent, although it is possible to use hydrogen. The initiative will work to set criteria for green cement and steel, encourage greater transparency and traceability and look to set a globally recognised target for public procurement of green steel and cement. Member governments also committed to the disclosure of embodied carbon of major public construction by no later than 2025.3
- Steel, trucking, shipping, aviation, cement, aluminium, chemicals and direct air capture: The first movers coalition is a US-led coalition of corporates to stimulate clean tech demand for hard-to-decarbonise areas which will in turn incentivise supply. Its statement said: “Members will use their global purchasing power to create new markets for these emerging technologies. These new demand signals empower suppliers to develop and scale their innovations between now and 2030 – helping us to reach our global emission targets.”.4
- Shipping: there were three announcements/initiatives of note. More than 200 businesses have committed to scale and commercialise zero-emissions shipping vessels and fuels by 2030. In turn, nine blue chip companies have committed to shift 100% of their ocean freight to zero carbon options by 2040, including Amazon, Ikea, Michelin and Unilever. Finally, 19 countries have signed the Clydebank declaration to support the establishment of six zero-emission shipping routes by the middle of this decade with more by 2030. With the International Maritime Organisation meeting in less than two weeks to negotiate emissions standards, this is a positive move that should pave the way for productive talks.
The focus moves beyond coal
Outside of corporate pledges, the
final text of the Glasgow Climate
Pact references the phase-down of
inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
This had already been announced by
the G20, but giving the commitment
a global stage adds emphasis and
scope for further debate. However,
the term “inefficient” provides a lot
of flexibility for nations, including the
UK, which are not ready to phase
these subsidies out yet. Currently,
fossil fuel subsidies amount to around
half a trillion dollars per year – far
outstripping subsidies for renewables.
A “Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance”
also emerged, with Denmark, Wales,
Costa Rica, California, France, Sweden,
Greenland, New Zealand, Portugal and Quebec signing up. The commitment
involves ending new exploration permits
for oil and gas. None of these nations
are major producers, so this will not
drive any significant impact, but it
shows the pressure that governments
are under to address the supply side
instead of focusing purely on demand
reduction. This is obviously not the
optimum tactic when considering
recent energy price volatility but, as
we have previously written, we are
in for a bumpy ride to net zero.
Finally, more than 30 countries
and financial institutions signed a
statement committing to halting all
direct public financing for fossil fuel
development overseas by the end
of 2022 and diverting the spending
to green energy. This comes hot on
the heels of a similar announcement
ending public financing for coal.
Canada signed up, which is significant
as the largest funder of fossil fuels
in the G20, as did the US, the UK
and Germany. The commitment has
the potential to shift $23.6 billion of
fossil fuel investment to clean energy.5
However, Japan, Korea and China are
the biggest providers of this finance
globally and have not yet signed the
wider fossil fuel agreement. A report by Climate Analytics was released
to coincide with COP, which outlines
that by 2030 gas will be responsible
for 70% of the projected increase in
fossil CO2 emissions and 60% of the
methane. Expect attention to intensify
on this transition fuel.
An innovative “just transition” coal
phase-out partnership with South
Africa was announced,6 which will
provide $8.5 billion to support South
Africa in moving to clean energy while
aiming to avoid the negative social
implications of shutting down a major
industry. The country has one of the
most coal-intensive grids globally
and an economy heavily dependent
on the fossil fuel. This could work
as a template for other regions and
discussions have already begun with
countries like Indonesia.
Leading technologies for new bulk
electricity generation are shown
in Figure 2 by geography, with
renewables leading the way in
countries representing more than
two-thirds of the world population
and 91% of electricity generation.
Similar mechanisms to South Africa’s
will be needed to support a just
transition away from coal.
Figure 2: Cheapest source of bulk generation, H1 2021.
Source: BloombergNEF. Note: The map shows the technology with the lowest levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for new-build plants in each country where BNEF has data.
The dollar numbers denote the per-MWh benchmark levelised-cost of the cheapest technology. All LCOEs are in nominal terms. Calculations exclude subsidies, tax credit or grid connection costs.
CCGT = combined-cycle gas turbine.
Net-zero pledges
Scrutiny of dodgy net-zero targets is
increasing, and will continue to do so.
“More than 80% of global GDP – and
77% of global greenhouse gases –
are now covered by a national net-zero
target, up from 68% and 61% last year”,
according to a new tracker co-led by
the University of Oxford.7 “That number
shrinks to 10% of global GDP and
5% of global emissions if only strong
commitments and clear plans are
included.”8
The US published its plan during
COP26 to achieve net zero,9 with
the UK doing likewise in the run up
to COP.10 These add credibility and
pave the way for other nations and
corporations to follow suit.
As this happens, expect to see the
University of Oxford’s 10% GDP and
5% emissions of credible targets start
to close the gap to the 80%/77%
announced. The UN has also
announced an oversight body for
net-zero targets.11
