Let’s begin with the obvious – what is COP26?

Skipping over official definitions and commentary and reviewing its long record, we get facts: COP26 is the latest iteration of global leaders pretending they are doing something about the climate crisis. (With notable exceptions among some politically and usually economically weak states. Who are therefore ineffective.)

Why pretense? Timeline, set goals, the way science is interpreted, and the results, answer.

It started a while ago.

The first gathering under the United Nations (UN) auspices took place back in 1979 under the name World Climate Conference. In 1988 UN set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body tasked with understanding climactic impacts of fossil fuel combustion. Its regular reports are used as the basis for setting climate goals and policy by the officialdom. Ostensibly.

In 1990 IPCC called for the first global treaty on climate change. In 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is opened for signature – the first global climate treaty. By 1993 166 countries signed on; today there are 197 Parties (196 states and 1 regional economic integration organization) [ 1 ]. In 1994 the treaty enters force. The first Conference of Parties, or COP1, takes place in Berlin in 1995. This year, 2021, brings us COP26 [ 2 ].

The purpose of the summits was, and still is, to get the governments to stop, then reverse emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in order to preserve a civilization sustaining climate. Or in the words of UNFCCC “{to keep GHG atmospheric concentration} at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system". More specifically, as stated in Annex I, parties were supposed to cut down emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 {around 350 parts per million for CO2 – see Fig. 1} [ 3 ]. Similar versions with dates pushed farther into the future were penned out in subsequent meetings.

The result? Let’s look at the atmospheric concentrations of the two GHGs by far most responsible for the climate crisis, carbon-dioxide – CO2 (potent in the long term), and methane – CH4 (potent in the short term).

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

A jaw-dropping failure to achieve stated goals.

Sadly, not surprising if we consider the extreme concentration of power and motivation of those at the top, (addressed in “Existential Crises: How did we get here?”). Leaders don’t plan to prevent the disaster; they have been, and plan to continue pretending. (again, for more on WHY, see Existential Crises)

To better understand how the ruse works, we need to analyze what is really being done at COPs - proposed solutions and how they compare with laws of physics.

But before delving into science and solutions territory, a few words on IPCC are in order.

Science is top notch. However, like anything that involves humans, bias, interests, and other innate shortcomings are to be expected. The way this reflects at IPCC is that it tends to be too conservative in its wording and predictions. Among other reasons are its structure, and scientists tending to err on the conservative side in general. Or as Michael MacCracken, head of the Climate Institute in Washington put it: “Scientists don’t like to be wrong, so they tend to discount the most uncertain things”. Moreover, it is a large body of volunteer experts that operates on consensus, an additional factor pulling towards the conservative end. Also, politicians (read corporate managers in the political sphere) are heavily involved in drafting executive summaries of the influential IPCC reports (which is what most people actually read), further dulling the picture. Decades worth of records of the contrast between IPCC models and reality confirm that this is actually so. “IPCC is underselling climate change”, sums up Dr Salvador Herrando-Pérez, from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute and Australian Centre for Ancient DNA. [ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

That said, besides IPCC reports which, remember, are the basis for COP negotiations and are the most widely quoted climate science resource, I’ll present views of some of the most prominent scientists expressing their opinions as individuals, and will note where the two have differing predictions. Thereby rendering a more realistic picture of the state of the climate system.

To science.

Current atmospheric CO2 concentration is at 413 ppm (parts per million). It corresponds to an average increase in temperature of somewhere between 2 – 3C above the preindustrial baseline, most likely around 2.3C [ 9 ]. Current actual average temperature increase is only 1.1 – 1.2C above the baseline because of the lag between emissions and eventual warming [ 10 ]. It takes the climate system several decades to catch up, but it will.

What does that practically mean for our daily lives?

Despite tending to be conservative, each consecutive IPCC report has been more dire than the previous. The 2018 edition was particularly poignant. It highlighted the distinction between two heating scenarios, that of 1.5C above the pre-industrial baseline, and 2C; and it is a significant one [ 11 ]. In simplest terms, at 1.5C we get to, more or less, continue with current lifestyles (with localized disasters). At 2C, civilization is likely to break down with unforeseeable consequences. Or as the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen and 18 other climate scientists concluded about 2C in their 2016 study: “It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.” [ 12 ]

Both scenarios, 1.5C and 2C, now require us not only to get to true zero emissions, but to suck some CO2 out of the atmosphere via negative emissions techniques (NETs). How much, depends on when we reach zero. However, to limit heating to 1.5C natural techniques for removing carbon-dioxide like replanting forests and improving agricultural practices won’t be enough even if we magically reached zero today. 2C is all but sure to have the same fate since we are just about to blow past its threshold (IPCC projections give us a little longer timelines). Human made negative emissions technology is now a necessity. [ 13, 14]

How much more can we emit to avoid catastrophe? Here’s how our carbon budget situation looks (a non-IPCC projection).

Fig. 3

Bottom line, today, in 2021, we very likely only have several years before blowing the 2C budget, assuming current rates of emissions and absent immediate large-scale action on the global level (IPCC gives us till 2030 for 1.5C).

Importantly, even with “business as usual” blowing the carbon budget, the planet won’t immediately warm to the catastrophic level, it will take several decades. A significant piece of the puzzle because this is the time in which we’ll have to scale up NETs who are in their infancy now, invent new ones, or both, in order to suck out excess CO2 and avoid civilizational collapse 2C+ will bring if we fail to do so.

Since 1.5C (we’re more-less ok) already depends on them, and 2C (civilizational collapse) almost there, let’s see what our current NET options are.

Fig. 4

As of now, besides reforestation and afforestation, Direct Air Capture (DAC), and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), emerge as the only potentially scalable candidates. Others are “highly speculative” in the words of Howard J. Herzog of MIT, who studied negative emissions technologies for almost 30 years; because they either aren’t proven, would potentially cause irreparable harm to ecosystems, like ocean fertilization for example, or both [ 15 ]. That leaves us with DAC and BECCS as realistic options.

Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), is a technique where CO2 is captured directly from the air and then stored in pressurized tanks, to be either reused or buried. Taking it to scale would heavily depend of the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, mainly pipelines. Scaling it up would require us to build up to 12 times more pipeline mileage than we have today. The problem with this approach is its exorbitant monetary and energy cost. So much so that 16 authors of a 2020 Princeton University paper declared DAC an “energetically and financially costly distraction“ [ 16 ]

Out of DAC comes the BECCS theory. Some scientists proposed that we could plant massive amounts of fast-growing trees and crops, burn the biomass to convert it to electricity, capture the released CO2 from the smokestacks and then bury it. However, if we are to pull out the ~10GT of carbon from the atmosphere by 2100 this way, as the 2015 Paris Agreement (COP21) projected, we have a little problem. We’d need to convert up to half of global cropland to grow the biomass necessary, and then somehow transport it to plants for burning. Obstacles that may not be overcome. [ 17 ]

Doesn’t sound promising, but the feeling may be wrong? What do experts say of negative emissions technologies and us counting on them?

Climate modeler, Wolfgang Knorr, told journalist Clive Thompson, of Paris Agreement’s plans to rely on NETs (in line with many IPCC projections): “‘It was an avoidance strategy,’ a coping mechanism for terrified scientists, he says. ‘You just don’t want to look the truth in the eye—that we waited too long’ to stop burning fossil fuels.” [ 18 ]

Kevin Anderson, former head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: “Two decades of research and pilot plants have struggled to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of power generation with CCS (DAC), even when combusting relatively homogeneous fossil fuels. Substituting for heterogeneous biomass feedstock adds to the already considerable challenges “. Also, “despite BECCS continuing to stumble through its infancy, many scenarios assessed by the IPCC propose its mature and large-scale roll out as soon as 2030 {my emphasis}” Anderson continues: “If negative-emission technologies do indeed follow the idealized, rapid, and successful deployment assumed in the models, then any reduction in near term mitigation caused by the appeal of negative emissions will likely lead to only a small and temporary overshoot of the Paris temperature goals. In stark contrast, if the many reservations increasingly voiced about negative-emission technologies (particularly BECCS) turn out to be valid, the weakening of near-term mitigation and the failure of future negative-emission technologies will be a prelude to rapid temperature rises reminiscent of the 4°C ‘business as usual’ pathway feared before the Paris Agreement.”. He then concludes: “Negative-emission technologies are not an insurance policy, but rather an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real risk they will be unable to deliver on the scale of their promise.” [ 19 ]

One of the leading researchers in DAC technology (CCS), Klaus Lackner, comments: “I’m not promising anything… All I really promise you is if we fail to make an attempt to make direct air capture work, life is a lot harder.” [ 20 ]

Highly regarded climate scientist who testified before Congress back in 1988 about the threat of climate change, James Hansen, evaluates: “Quietly, with minimal objection from the scientific community… the assumption that young people will somehow figure out a way to undo the deeds of their forebears, has crept into and spread like a cancer through UN climate scenarios...The Paris Agreement is a precautionary agreement, wishful thinking...Our governments have not accepted the reality dictated by the laws of physics and climate science: we must phase out fossil fuel emissions rapidly” [ 21 ] ‘

Howard J. Herzog of MIT: ”The bottom line is that NETs must be shown to work on a gigaton scale, at an affordable cost, and without serious environmental impacts. That has not happened yet… there is a wide range of opinion on whether this will ever happen… we expect future generations to clean up our mess by removing CO2 from the atmosphere at {much higher} costs {than we can today, by phasing out fossil fuels}… this makes no sense, economic or otherwise.” “Treating NETs as a way to compensate for breaking the carbon budget and overshooting stabilization targets is more hope than reality. The technical, economic and environmental barriers of NETs are very real. In formulating climate policy, I believe we cannot count on the future use of NETs to compensate for our failure to do enough mitigation today.” [ 22 ]

That’s the state of one of the main pillars of proposed solutions to the climate crisis – Negative Emissions Technologies. Net Zero is another.

What is it?

Simply put, Net Zero means we get to keep doing what we are doing as long as emissions are claimed to be offset somehow. In other words, the rich get to keep flying their private jets, corporations keep digging up more fossil fuels, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk get to keep sending the wealthy to space at a carbon cost that exceeds emissions a poor person emits in her lifetime [ 23 ] - as long as they claim they planted enough trees in the Amazon or elsewhere to offset their emissions. Put differently, afforestation and reforestation necessary to keep us under 2C, is spent for the pleasure of wealthy nations, and especially the wealthiest among us, while the poorest and future generations are handed over a dystopia.

Science unequivocally confirms Net Zero is a false solution [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Yet, we’re planning just that. Net-Zero, is the ultimate goal of climate negotiations at COPs. Not surprising if we recall where true power lies [ 27 ].

What, then, do we make of all of this?

First, let me recap where we’re at. I’ll use a metaphor in the hope of conveying the picture.

We are facing an asteroid hurtling towards earth that will cause the collapse of civilization a few decades from now. It is a product of our way of living. We created it. Though we’re close to point of no return, it is still in our power to prevent the catastrophe by acting in the next several years in an unprecedented way on an unprecedented scale. Literally, as if an asteroid was about to do to us what another did to the dinosaurs. We know what must be done. Immediately stop new fossil fuel extraction, rapidly phase them out, scale up renewables, and reach true zero by as early as 2030. A lot of hard word, in a very short time period. Serious panic needs to set in and spark to action every ounce of human ingenuity.

That being the state of science, let’s see what our leaders are lately up to?

We get the picture by reviewing the most lauded COP, the one in Paris in 2015, and the latest one in Glasgow. The ones in between didn’t achieve much worth mentioning.

COP21 of 2015 in Paris has undoubtedly been the most celebrated by the officialdom. World leaders agreed to pledges in GHGs emissions cuts leading to Net Zero at a certain date. Most pledged that would be by 2050. These were nationally determined promises that were collectively supposed to halt global heating to “well below 2C”, preferably 1.5C, thereby avoiding some of the most devastating consequences 2C temperature increase would bring. [ 28 ]

Several problems when we examine just some of the details. First off, the aim is a fake solution – Net Zero. Second, the pledges weren’t legally binding and there was no enforcement mechanism. Then, even if fully realized, pledges were too weak and would give us a world that warmed by around 3C [ 29 ]. A catastrophe.

The dissonance, however, didn’t stop the politicians and corporate lobbyists from petting themselves on the back for finally solving the climate crisis.

However, acknowledging that more needed to be done, and that the civil society wouldn’t be satisfied with such non-solutions, Paris pledges were to be reviewed and strengthened every 5 years; the first review was to happen at COP26 (scheduled for 2020, but COVID epidemic pushed it to 2021).

How did the inadequate promises pen out since 2015? Only one country lived up to its Paris pledge, Gambia, a country 1/3 the size of Belgium, with 2.5 million inhabitants, and an economy based on agriculture and remittances. [ 30 ]

THAT is the plan that COP26 was to strengthen.

Glasgow summit began, as they always do, with heads of state giving grand speeches and waving fake solutions as a pretense something is being done. Here’s what some of the most important players did.

Biden told delegates: “Ladies and gentlemen, to state the obvious, we meet with the eyes of history upon us and the profound questions before us. It’s simple: Will we act? Will we do what is necessary? Will we seize the enormous opportunity before us? Or will we condemn future generations to suffer?” then he reiterated the official goal that can’t be achieved without technology we don’t yet have, conveniently skipping over that pestering fact: “We can keep the goal of limiting global warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius within our reach if we come together, if we commit to doing our part of each of our nations with determination and with ambition. That’s what COP26 is all about.”.

The president then proudly proceeded to his “solutions” to the existential threat and outlined what’s in his meager climate initiative, a part of the Build Back Better plan, which is held hostage by the Republicans and especially corporate Democrats, and may not even pass [ 31 ]. Its future now heavily depends on the coal baron/senator with the most fossil fuel industry donations among members of Congress, Joe Manchin, who already said he’ll postpone the vote for 2022, likely looking to further weaken the bill. [ 32, 33 ]

That’s what Biden says he’s doing and what he wants – 1.5C – a goal that is likely beyond reach; and Build Back Better Plan that is supposed to get us there – a plan not fit for purpose that may never even realize. We aren’t supposed to notice the dissonance. We’re supposed to be impressed that so much dust has been kicked up in the air.

Then there’s what he actually does.

Only a few months after a major report from International Energy Agency warned that the world can’t open up new fossil fuel extraction if we are to have a remote chance at 1.5C, the Biden administration is proposing to open 735 000 acres for new leases on public land as well as the largest offshore drilling auction in the history of the USA - 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, and practically in the same breath as giving the Glasgow speech, he asked OPEC members to increase oil production, justifying the move when confronted as, “only in the short term”.

Finally, Biden used 5 planes and 85 cars in his entourage to Glasgow, for something that could easily have been done over Zoom, at zero carbon cost.

Turning to others.

UK’s Boris Johnson ingeniously told the world that “When it comes to tackling climate change, words without action, without deeds are absolutely pointless” correctly describing what world leaders, himself included, have been doing for decades. He then boarded a private plane to fly back to London because of a “busy schedule”, justifying the move when asked why he didn’t use rail [ 34 ]. At the same time his administration plans to develop the Cambio oil field in the North Sea, an equivalent of running 16 coal-fired power stations for a year. [ 35 ]

Nerendra Modi of India has updated his country’s pledge with a solid date. His government plans to be net-zero by, wait for it – 2070. And only if the rich countries commit to $1t of climate financing for the developing world. A date too late to avert disaster, and a condition that the rich are likely to miss. For example, in Paris in 2015 the wealthy nations pledged $100b in support for the poor by the year 2020. In 2021, the actual figure is sitting at $80b. And, wealthy nations sabotaged any change to the arrangement that would ensure they pay to aid the transition away from fossil fuels by the poor [ 36 ].

The most honest among the powerful were actually the authoritarian regimes of China and Russia. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping didn’t even bother showing up, they simply sent a video address pledging false solutions. This is likely thanks to lack of democracy in their countries, and thus lack of accountability and the minimal threat such blatant disregard for humanity’s biggest problem presents to their hold on power.

Finally, what is agreed on?

A few things, announced with much pomp, of course. Here are some of them.

A plan to curb methane emission by 30% by the end of the decade from 2020 levels signed by more than 100 countries. A meek goal, made even more raisable by the refusal of some of the biggest emitters to sign on; Russia, China, and India among them [ 37 ]. Besides being weak, it seems to be poorly designed. Some critiques even think it may lead to an increase in CH4 emissions in the US [ 38 ].

A deal on forests, intended to stop deforestation by the year 2030 signed by more than 100 countries. This time including Russia, China, India, and even Bolsonaro’s Brazil. That means around 85% of world’s forest are now protected from further deforestation. Great! Except, many are unpersuaded, and for valid reasons. For one, history. In 2014 the New York Declaration of Forests aimed to end deforestation by 2030, and in 2017 the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030 (same goal) were signed, yet deforestation continued unabated. People in the thick of things such as Amazon forest protectors, and environmental activists agree that the treaty shouldn’t be taken seriously for many reasons including logistical issues of enforcement and lack of support and political will. Even its structure raises serious questions as Carolina Pasquali, executive director of Greenpeace Brazil says “It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn’t binding”, she adds, “meanwhile, the Amazon is already on the brink and can’t survive years more deforestation.” [ 39 ]. This year, Amazon deforestation hit a 15-year high [ 40 ]

US and China signed an agreement to act on climate change. With, among other things, China ostensibly committing to cutting down methane. However, “the joint agreement was short on specifics. It did not extract a new timetable from China under which the country would ratchet down emissions, nor did China set a ceiling for how high its carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would reach before they started to fall. China agreed to “phase down” coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, starting in 2026, but did not specify by how much or over what period of time”, and, “Several experts said the joint pact between China and the United States fell short of a 2014 deal between the United States and China to jointly curb emissions” [ 41 ]

Countries agreed to “phase down”, not “phase out” coal as originally proposed. Many in the rich nations blamed India and China for this change in wording, but didn’t mention that phasing out oil and gas wasn’t even mentioned at COP26. The omission is significant because poor nations depend much more on coal, while the rich burn more oil and gas. In other words, the rich wanted the poor to carry the burden of drastically cutting down emissions, then blamed them for not accepting this arrangement - while they intend to keep on with their cushy life at a huge CO2 cost. [ 42, 43 ]

Finally, there was an agreement on global carbon markets. A mechanism that justifies continuing fossil fuel combustion and business as usual.

What do we make of the COP then?

Mis-leaders know the science and what must be done very well, but don’t intend to do it. More global heating induced disasters are increasingly visible and can’t be ignored any longer. THey’re are at COP26 because they must pretend they’re doing something about an issue increasing majorities in their countries want action on, and are ever more engaged around. Corporations are there for the purpose of “greenwashing”, while making sure they protect their profits in real negotiations that took place behind closed doors. Corporate lobbyists were, by far, the largest delegation at COP26 [ 44 ].

The show is being played to placate the masses, and keep us passive, while the status quo and record profits keep rolling on, until the inevitable arrives.

Will civil society realize the ruse and mobilize in large enough numbers to pressure the mis-leaders in time to avert disaster? This is precisely the junction where the future of civilization and possibly the survival of the species will be decided at.

Understanding Power

Conference Of Parties 26 (COP26)