So, did they?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warming to the task<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
According to its organizers, COP26\u2019s main goal was to set the world on a path to limiting warming to 1.5\u00b0 Celsius above preindustrial levels by the century\u2019s end (down from the Paris Agreement\u2019s previous goal of 2\u00b0C).2<\/sup> This initially seemed a highly ambitious target, as pre-conference proposals had put the world on track for a 2.7\u00b0C increase, but major pledges from countries such as India soon saw estimates drop and optimism rise. Certainly, there was a sense that talk was finally being matched with concrete action: first, over a hundred nations pledged to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030, then the 130 countries that own 90 percent of the world\u2019s forests agreed to halt and reverse deforestation by the same year.3<\/sup> However, it\u2019s not yet clear whether the holy grail of a 1.5\u00b0C temperature rise in 2100 is plausible or a pipe dream \u2013 current estimates range from the International Energy Agency\u2019s 1.8\u00b0C to a disconcerting 2.3\u00b0C (Carbon Tracker).4<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Energy also grabbed the spotlight. In the conference\u2019s last week, the fledgling Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, founded to put a halt to new drilling, welcomed six new members,5<\/sup> while the final Glasgow pact contained the first-ever references to fossil fuels in a COP document.6<\/sup> Included in this was a promise to put an end to \u201cunabated\u201d coal \u2013 which isn\u2019t offset by carbon capture and storage \u2013 making it much less economical going forward.7<\/sup> However, these fossil fuel mentions were ultimately weaker and more compromised than first hoped. In a last-gasp objection, the world\u2019s largest three greenhouse gas emitters (China, the US, and instigators India) succeeded in watering down the wording from \u201cphasing out\u201d to \u201cphasing down\u201d.8<\/sup> And an outright end to subsidies was qualified with the word \u201cinefficient\u201d, leaving more room for maneuvering.9<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n For the first time, the world of finance looked to put its money where its mouth is with a strong, formal presence. CEOs across industries seemed eager to demonstrate their new commitment to sustainability \u2013 whether car manufacturers promoting electric-vehicle initiatives, or 450 financial institutions aligning $130 trillion in assets with net-zero goals.10<\/sup> The agreement to set up a global, UN-backed carbon credit to be swapped and traded across borders was one of the conference\u2019s big wins. However, this still falls short of a mandatory universal carbon \u2018tax\u2019, and leaves substantial wiggle room for those looking for loopholes.11<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis is our collective moment in history. This is our chance to forge a cleaner, healthier, and more prosperous world. And this is our time to deliver on the high ambition set by our leaders at the start of the summit. We must rise to the occasion.\u201d \u2013 Alok Sharma<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Despite (or perhaps due to) leaving the Paris Agreement a year prior, a strong American contingent including President Biden, climate envoy John Kerry, and Barack Obama made it clear that the US has returned to the climate table in a big way. While Biden\u2019s sustainability-focused \u2018Build Back Better\u2019 infrastructure deal faced challenges at home, the shock joint appearance of Kerry and his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua was warmly received by the international community. The pair\u2019s symbolic announcement that the world\u2019s two largest emitters would put aside diplomatic tensions to work together on climate change was one of the conference\u2019s most welcome surprises. 12<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n A stultifying lack of trust between stakeholders pervaded the event. Representatives from the global south felt that they\u2019d been locked out of the process, leading to accusations of corporate \u2018greenwashing\u2019 and protests from women, indigenous collectives, and youth activists.13<\/sup> The Adaptation Fund, established in 2001 to finance climate-related causes in developing countries, did receive $356 million in new support, but this was still considered entirely inadequate.14<\/sup> Meanwhile, \u2018loss and damage\u2019 \u2013 the chosen phrase for the destruction wrought by the climate crisis on lives, livelihoods, and infrastructure \u2013 became possibly the conference’s most bitterly contested issue.15<\/sup> Vulnerable countries such as Kenya and Tuvalu (whose delegate pointedly addressed the conference while standing knee-deep in the Pacific), implored richer nations to view the climate emergency as a literal matter of life and death. They also argued for reparations in the form of a $100 billion loss-and-damage fund to help avert, address, and minimize climate-related disasters. Ultimately, with \u201cdeep regret\u201d, this pledge remained unfulfilled, with developing nations having to settle for the vague promise of more dialogue instead of hard compensation.16<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the jury\u2019s out on whether COP26 should be deemed a failure or success. For every desperate disappointment, there was an unanticipated breakthrough. For every resounding achievement, a bitter anticlimax. Even many of the points agreed upon are asterisked, claused, or caveated. Unsurprisingly, reactions to the conference run the gamut from optimism to despair. John Kerry chose to see the positives in arguing that \u201cyou can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good\u201d,17<\/sup> Saleemul Hug, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, scathingly labeled the talks \u201cabsolutely disappointing and totally unacceptable\u201d, and prominent environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, felt that nothing had been achieved but \u201cblah blah blah\u201d.18<\/sup><\/p>\n Whatever the verdict, the fact remains: never before has the climate been spoken about by so many influential figures with such urgency. COP26 ended with a call for nations to revisit and strengthen their 2030 climate goals, and to return in 2022 with more ambitious targets to curb emissions. It was further agreed to hold a high-level ministerial roundtable meeting every year until 2030 to ensure acceptable targets are met.19<\/sup><\/p>\n On the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) Business Sustainability Management online short course, you\u2019ll gain the skills to navigate your organization through the challenges of a changing climate. Learn how best to adapt to shifting business expectations in a world defined by scarcity and inequality, and develop your ability to unearth real solutions for positive change.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDragging over the coals<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Credit where it\u2019s due<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
United by a common cause<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A climate of mistrust<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What\u2019s in the pipeline?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nNavigate business in a changing climate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"School](\"https:\/\/www.getsmarter.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/CAM_logo_black_variant.png\"){kind=logo}
\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n ![\"Read](\"https:\/\/www.getsmarter.com\/blog\/wp-content\/themes\/blog\/assets\/icn_arrow-circle_right.svg\"){kind=icon}
\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n