Between pros and cons, COP26’s balance is slightly positive, but there is much to be done from now on
What needs to be done for the planet not to warm more than 1.5°C this century is more or less agreed among scientists, members of civil society and even serious political leaders. The issue is often agreeing on the speed of the process. And deciding who will give up some things along the way.
In this context, in O Globo‘s evaluation, the balance of COP26 in Glasgow can be classified as positive.
According to Natalie Unterstell, from the Talanoa Institute, for instance, the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact is the product of a real change in the expectations generated since the Paris Agreement. Which according to the expert does not mean that there is not much to be done by countries by 2022. Examples are the construction of more robust nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and the officialization of promises to cut CO2 emissions.
Climate policy analyst at Observatório do Clima, a NGO network, Stela Herschmann points out that the report’s final version was more watered down than the first drafts. Despite the fact that the term “fossil fuels” has been used for the first time in UN climate documents – which in diplomatic terms has an important weight -, the responsibility of these fuels as the great environmental villains ended up being diluted. According to Herschmann, if the commitment to hold warming to 1.5°C is in fact serious, there can be no more subsidies for fossil fuels.
The online or printed version of this content can be freely reproduced. Please mention the material origin. Please be aware although that many of the articles mentioned and commented by us are subjected to restricted reprinting.
In here you will find news and information about studies and researches related to deforestation. The content is produced by the ClimaInfo Institute team specially to PlenaMata.
If you liked this piece press here and sign up to receive in your e-mail the daily Newsletter PlenaMata.