A.J. Camacho

Are the commitments made legally binding and how they will be monitored?

The pledges issued in Glasgow are as legally binding as anything can be under international law. That is to say, while they are official, there is no enforcement agency that supersedes nations - no police or court that can truly hold countries to account. Though international courts or individual countries may try to sanction or otherwise punish nations that fail their pledges, it should be expected that at least some countries will fall short and suffer no repercussions from the international system.

But though commitments aren’t enforceable, the Glasgow Climate Pact (GCP) has created new systems to keep the pressure on national governments. For instance, there is a so-called “no-cheat charter” that standardizes the method countries must use when self-reporting their emissions. Historically, many states have taken liberties with their self-reporting of emissions – particularly regarding methane – to the point that a Washington Post investigation found emissions were at least 16 per cent higher than national reports would indicate.

Coalapsing under pressure: a “phase down” of the fossil fuel was changed to rather than “phase out”

In addition, the GCP now makes countries update their emissions targets every year, up from the Paris Agreement’s decision to update them every five years. Cop26 president Alok Sharma told me the Pact “makes references to countries coming back ahead of the stocktake. It makes references to census reports being on an annual basis. So there is a clear ‘clean thread’ throughout the cover decision”. This type of increased reporting will improve emissions transparency and, in theory, help individual citizens and NGOs hold countries to account where the international system cannot.

Has this created a new division?

In one sense, yes. In another sense, no. On the one hand, India’s last-minute insistence that the Pact call for a “phase down” rather than “phase out” of coal power added drama and caught the attention of the press, observers, and other parties. In this sense, India - and China who supported them - are only building their reputation as countries that don’t take the climate crisis seriously. On a civil society level, this may prove to be a turning point.

But on the other hand, sources have told me this kind of move – while shocking in its last-minute nature – was not surprising to diplomats in Glasgow. Leaders and negotiators still have a similar understanding of what each other’s aims are. But as these leaders change, it’s possible a public discontent will push its way up into higher offices.

Will life change much in the next few years now that we have the GCP?

It’s too soon to say. If the pledges made by countries are adhered to, global warming will likely be limited to below 2C. Relative to the ~2.5C pre-Cop predictions, that would probably mean the conservation of at least some coral reefs and saving tens of millions of people across the globe from being displaced. However, these pledges are – historically – not lived up to.

That being said, a more interesting – and perhaps more important – aspect will be how Cop26 affects media coverage of the climate crisis. If we see press and public attention shifted increasingly on the crisis, governments and companies may respond with more urgency than they previously had.

Was Cop26 our ‘last best chance’? Many activists and experts think so…

What happens next?

In short, we wait and see. In November 2022, Cop27 will take place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. Organizers and leaders at Cop26 framed the GCP as a success by the logic that it has created the foundation that will produce a final solution. One such measure was the increased frequency of emissions cut targets. Combining these revised efforts with other decisions reached in Glasgow – like the US-China working group to cooperate on climate policy – will make Cop27 at least as important as Glasgow and Paris, if not more so.

While many referred to Cop26 as our “last, best chance”, it should be noted that the climate crisis is not so cut and dry. Rather, with each passing year, the difficulty to rein in emissions enough to avert 1.5C warming becomes dramatically more difficult. Theoretically, all nations could unanimously shut down factories, farms, and cars in 2029 and warming would be limited to 1.4C, but such a measure would defy all expectations. In brief, we won’t the precise tipping point until it’s either in our rear view mirror.

A.J. Camacho is a reporter for The Scoop and attended Cop26

Cop26: What happens next, and are commitments legally binding?