COP26: Countries urged to strengthen climate commitments in draft treaty

The first version of the COP26 climate agreement was published this morning with calls for countries to do more to cut carbon emissions.

The document includes a specific proposal for the first time to phase out burning coal and end all subsidies for fossil fuels.

It said all parties should come back at the end of next year with new and improved emissions plans and there should be another world leaders’ summit in 2023.

The document will now be negotiated by the countries attending the conference.

The COP26 in Glasgow has focussed on the need to “keep alive” the prospect of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5C by 2100.

Today’s document, known as the draft cover decision, recognised that every increase in temperature made the effects worse.

It called for “rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse emissions”. This included the cut of 45% in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, relative to 2010 levels, and to net zero by mid-century.

But so far, country plans for emissions reductions, known as nationally determined contributions, are not enough to limit warming to 1.5C.

Analysis published yesterday by Climate Action Tracker predicted global temperatures were expected to rise by at least 2.4C, despite pledges made at the COP26 talks.

Today’s draft decision called for “meaningful and effective action” from all countries in this “critical decade”.

The draft decision said urgent and increased ambition and action was needed in mitigation, adaptation and funding to fill the gaps between current plans and what is needed to prevent temperature rise.

It said that by the end of next year parties should “revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their nationally-determined contributions, as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal”.

It called on countries to “accelerate the phasing out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”. This has timetable and is expected to be contested.

It invited them to “consider further opportunities to reduce non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions”.

It also “strongly urges” all countries to meet any outstanding pledges as soon as possible. And it emphasised the “critical importance of nature-based solutions”.

The document noted with “serious concern” that there was not enough money to help developing countries respond to worsening impacts of climate change.

It urged developed countries to “urgently scale-up” their provision of climate finance for adaptation and called for “significantly enhanced” financial support for developing countries, beyond the goal, not yet met, of USD 100bn/year.

The draft included loss and damage from climate impacts – a key issue in developing countries. It said developed countries should increase their support and action to avert, minimise and address loss and damage but with no specifics and timescale.

The former UK climate envoy, John Ashton, told the BBC’s Today programme that people would demand clear commitments in the final text to reduce emissions:

“It’s a very dangerous and delicate situation for the negotiators. The whole thing I think will be balanced on knife edge and normally, in a situation like this, you reach for the fudge. You’re not going to get more pledges at this stage. But the thing about the public being activated now about this now is there’s no fudge available.

Boris Johnson is due to meet negotiators on a visit to Glasgow today.

Overarching Conference of theh Parties document

CMP document

COP decision text

Reporting at COP26 has been possible because of donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

10 replies »

  1. The document ” urged developed countries to “urgently scale-up” their provision of climate finance for adaptation and called for “significantly enhanced” financial support for developing countries, beyond the goal, not yet met, of USD 100bn/year.”
    “Financial support” with its overtones of a gift from the developed world does not ‘hack it’ as they say. This is money we owe to the developing world for the resources we have stolen since the advent of the colonial era: it’s a move towards “compensation”, twice blessed: it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
    Just as with Covid, none of us is cured until we are all cured. Action by all, not by some, is an imperative if our children and grandchildren are to enjoy a future other than one such as that being worked out horribly on the Belarusian/Polish border. The immediate end to FF exploration and development has never been more obviously necessary; the attempts to thwart this by a green-washing FF industry never more despicable, the anger inspired never more evident.
    We must demand more from our leaders, domestic and other. They have been warned. They know that climate change is anthropogenic – that man having initiated it, must now work to arrest it. Enough of the corruption embedded in our body politic.

  2. Ahh, the one sided equation again.

    Normally, within a balance sheet there are two sides. What is owed and what is due to be received.

    If the latter was followed, then most of the developed nations would have a lot of receipts way overdue from developing countries eg. modern healthcare. And the list would go on for page after page. Would that be owed, or had it just been donated and then forgotten?

    How about the cobalt being taken from DRC where the wages are a pittance? Perhaps the EV guys could blesseth by paying a proper price, or if not, add some “compensation”? Probably not-that is not the way anyone becomes filthy rich.

    So, maybe best to revert to financial support, which is an existing concept but does not ask for those receipts.

    Perhaps Cllr Mac Cafferty, leader of Brighton & Hove City Council’s Green Group had enough time during his flight from Gatwick to Glasgow to ponder on that, prior to marching with Greta? Must demand more of him? Or, is he excused because high speed rail is not available yet?

    The colonial era is an interesting one, and usually quoted incorrectly. I recall talking with two ladies from Africa who had been sent to UK to study poultry production. I initially thought this was to get better results from their extensive small scale existing systems, but no, it was to be able to return and help set up a modern western style system of production to make sure more of the population could benefit from a secure local protein source. Two years of education required, for which fees were paid as overseas students, no charge for the expertise.

    • Ahh! But there is no such thing as a “one sided equation” old thing, is there? The mere phrase “one sided equation” is a contradiction in terminology. In order for the mathematical terminology of an “equation” to exist at all, then by distinct mathematical and indeed grammatical definition, an equation must therefore have two sides. Otherwise its not an equation at all. Just a mere jumble of numbers. Hmm? Why is that familiar? And therefore the phrase “one sided equation” is meaningless as a term, a phrase, or even an intended epithet.

      The phrase is similar to this nonsense poem: Quote from the Music and Texts of GARY BACHLUND

      “One bright day in the middle of the night,
      Two dead boys got up to fight.
      They turned their backs and faced each other,
      Drew their swords and shot one another.
      One was blind and the other couldn’t see,
      So they chose a fool for their referee.
      A mute eyewitness screamed with fright.
      A cripple danced to see the sight.
      A deaf policeman heard the noise.
      He came and shot the two dead boys.
      A paralysed donkey passing by,
      Kicked the copper in the eye,
      And knocked him through a rubber wall,
      Into a ditch and drowned them all.
      If you don’t believe this lie is true,
      Ask the blind man. He saw it too.”

      The phrase “one sided equation” fits perfectly into the same nonsense style of verse doesn’t it.

      What the phrase illustrates however, if meant seriously that is, is a lack of understanding of rather simple mathematical concepts, grammar and context.

      There are very clear and quite obvious mathematical concepts involved in Iaith1720’s comment. Certainly I can perceive that to be the case, myself being suitably qualified, and I am sure everyone else see that can too. Those that can read it, that is.

      All except one it seems?

      The problem perhaps therefore appears to be in the perception of the originator of the phrase. Being only able to perceive one side of the two sided equation.
      A sort of myopic imbalance in perception. An “equation” in that it possesses two sides by definition, is only possible in the real world. Being unable to perceive both sides of an equation, would be either an unfortunate perceptual imbalance, or perhaps only to be available in a mathematical or a grammatical fantasy world where no such rules apply?

      Perhaps the problem is that its the inability to perceive both sides of an equation in anyone else’s complex narratives that confuses the originator of the misconception? When on more simple and apparently much more familiar grounds, regarding chickens it seems, is not quite so perceptively myopic?

      Fascinating isn’t it? [Edited by moderator]

      That was fun!

  3. Ahh, the suitably qualified!

    In what?

    Well, unless identity has changed, in building vast International Airports!

    So, yes balanced equations do come to mind. It will take a lot of attempts to balance that one. A sinner who repents is one way to go, but excuse me if I am not buying it. I could tediously research the carbon footprint of Hong Kong International Airport during and post construction, but I don’t think I will bother, however:

    That is indeed fascinating.

    What was the line from the film? “Build it and they will come”? And they (apart from Greta) will keep on coming for decade after decade causing vast amounts of emissions over that time. What do some of your buddies post? Supply creates demand! Well done, old thing. Good job you put your qualifications to such worthwhile use.

    And, yes, my point was that all too frequently on DoD there is no mention or consideration regarding the other side of the equation. Sorry you have missed out on my contributions to address and balance that.

    I repeat, debtors and creditors.

    • The old weaponised personalisation and isolation of issues again is it? Oh, Dear Oh Dear. Just like old times again isn’t it? All Gas and Gaiters (see what I did there?) from you, and common sense science and mathematics from me. I can guess you will try to spin this out ad-nauseam and ad-infinitum as usual. No change there.

      No. Far from it old thing, far from “missing out” I still prefer to live in the real world, not a miss-perceived mathematical fantasy world where only one side of the provided myopic one sided equation limitation, is permitted to have an opinion about anything other than your own.

      Still obsessed with Greta Thunberg too? Oh, Dear…never mind. Another myopic miss-representation fixation of the reality. Its probably not reciprocated or even acknowledged. Sorry about that.


      Yes, old thing, I have degrees in mathematics and Civil Engineering amongst others. Civil Engineering in particular employs mathematics as an intrinsic component of design, construction and practice.

      Would you care to describe your qualifications in mathematics? Or is that another “one sided equation”? Or a one sided perception?

      As a matter of interest. How many miles did you used to drive a year in your diesel/petrol internal combustion engined car all on your lonesome old thing? What was it? 40,000 miles you said you drove a year on your own travels? Tut! Tut!

      And as I’ve explained at least twice before, Aero Turbo Fan Jet engines use fuel mainly during take off and landing. The rest of the journey is mainly propelled by superheated air created in the recycling compressor stages with a little fuel to assist during manoeuvring for course and height changes. The airlines charge full fuel duty for each passenger the entire trip however.

      Not only that airlines tend to take more than one passenger old thing. Anywhere between 450 to 850 passengers dependant upon the type and make. So like a train, the carbon cost footprint of modern Turbo Fan Jet engined aircraft is shared by the many who travel together using the same fuel. Whereas a gas guzzling combustion engined car doing 40,000 miles a year carrying one person, is neither shared, nor carbon foot-print friendly or economic. Sorry about that. Maybe you could compete when you transport between 450 and 850 passengers in your own little gas guzzler car?

      The flight distance between UK to Hong Kong is around 6,000 miles, and I did that twice a year on six month contracts. UK to SA is around 3500 miles. Six months there and six months back in UK working on the documents and specifications. The science and the mathematics reveals all doesn’t it.

      So my round trip distance was around 12,000 miles a year, which is around 30% of the distance you declared you drove with eyesight problems per year and therefore the flight used a lot less fuel than a gas guzzling diesel/petrol combustion engine car even at up to 25% efficiency, mostly a lot less. Whereas a modern Turbo Fan Jet Aero engine can reach around 75% efficiency dependant upon the size of the aeroplane, the distance travelled, and the size of the engine air intake and construction, and the amount of turbulence or wind speed and direction. Much like an internal combustion engine gas guzzling car in that respect. So. My two trips a year as opposed to your two trips a day? (there and back). In case you asked, as I’m sure you will. I lived only about ten miles from the office at the time, and I used the bus as I didn’t want to own a car and not use it for six months a year.

      Hmm, the truth begins to bite doesn’t it?

      Oops! Touché old bean!

  4. Nope. No relevant truth there. Just evasion.

    How many airmiles created by the airport? What quantity of emissions during construction? Or, was it all supposed to be a grass runway, constructed with only horses assisting ? I am sure you could find a photo showing one-except that was not the case. You might even do the maths. to determine how many would be needed, but it would still be fantasy.

    Oops, your evasion seems to suggest if you were building a nuclear tipped missile it was fine, as you travelled to work on a bus! How do I put it? It is not the bus, it is the missile!

    No need to be so touchy about your previous employment. After all, it was your choice, and it is a very nice airport, unless one starts to look at all that concrete laid at the alter of fossil fuel, thanks to fossil fuel, to use a lot more fossil fuel. One can always resign if the job isn’t supporting one’s personal integrity. I have. And the world can always benefit from another poet.

    My choice? Yes, I travelled but why did I do so? Oh yes, I remember, it was to assist producers to be able to efficiently produce quality food for their customers, both in UK and abroad, whilst maintaining high standards of animal welfare. [Edited by moderator] And, no, I did not drive with bad eyesight. I drove after laser surgery on retinal damage sustained whilst on holiday once okayed to do so by the surgeon who did the treatment. That is the normal procedure, old thing. Sorry it does not fit your narrative, and does not impact upon my judgement, but it is the reality, and my subsequent annual sight tests confirmed that was still the situation, and continues to be so, although the lenses get thicker to maintain that. Did Mr. Cummings get similar advice? I don’t know, and I don’t believe anyone was that interested in whether he did or did not, as the narrative creation was (again) the motivation, and the reality was less interesting.

    Besides the evasion, I just would remind that I am not the one campaigning against fossil fuel. Is it difficult to observe that?

    • You still squandering time and electricity? Still bashing the plastic and all that? I’ve already told you the truth. Sorry that does not fit your endless fake narratives. You’ll just have to accept it. Time wasting is no longer acceptable.

      Strange to have to break this to you, but its not all about you old thing, or me for that matter. Its about everyone and whether or not we will survive the next decade, let alone the next century. But it seems all you are intersted in, is to chunder on and on and on and on about nothing relevant to the subject. As if none of that matters. Just so long as you think you can “point score” and waste everyone’s time and effort. I’ve given you far more than you are capable of understanding, so you return again and again to old obsessions and personal fixations only of any interest to yourself.

      I could chase you down all those fake narrative rabbit holes you imagine up from fantasy land and prove they are empty and vaccuus. But that only panders to the usual self interest that is sought above anything real. So why bother with all that at all?

      What really counts is what emerges from this COP26 conference. And what to do about that if it does not go far enough and nothing is actually done. Time to discuss the sixth major extinction event in the Earth’s history, and the fact that 1 in 5 deaths worldwide are caused by fossil fuel pollutions. Silence is no longer an option.


      The fact that petrochemical and fossil fuels have exceeded their use by date by three decades at least. The Earth can no longer tolerate all that greed and corruption and ecocide abuse.

      The fact that sea rise and Island communities face drowning now, already, not just in 2030 or 2050. The fact that the predictions are coming true are now because the total lack of action. The planet may already be in a 2.4 degree planet wide temperature increase already from the lack of action by the corrupt governments and their petrochemical and fossil fuel owners, their influencers and controllers.

      So thanks a whole big greedy polluted lot for that destructive legacy old thing. I’m sure my and everyone’s children and grandchildren will be eternally grateful for that little gift from the governments and their paymasters and servants. Way to go. May that not be our only option left.

      That is the real world problem that faces all of humanity. I have no regrets, unlike some I’m not a hypocrite that promotes petrochemical and fossil fuels and yet criticises others for using the only fuels that those industries have made damn sure are the only monopolised products that are available to anyone. Not funny that…..

      All the rest of what you say is just the same old empty rhetoric again and wastes of space considering the important issues of the subject matter:
      COP26: Countries urged to strengthen climate commitments in draft treaty
      The first version of the COP26 climate agreement was published this morning with calls for countries to do more to cut carbon emissions.

      Maybe one day soon, you will be unlucky enough see the results of your own handiwork up front a twice as nasty. But that would mean we will all suffer that legacy too. That is unacceptable. Whether you like it or not. Everything must change for the better.

      Don’t cry. It had to happen one day. That day was decades ago and was ignored and buried by Exxon and Shell to name only two. Now everyone is living on borrowed time.

      Thanks a Lot.

      Have a Nice….?

  5. Nice, Phil. Interesting supplement on this ‘inactivism’ as a replacement for outright denial, in the Guardian on the 11th.

    • Yes Iaith1720, sometimes when all that happens is even yet more empty speeches as illustrated only too recently. Empty talking heads and empty talking words on some weird ego trip that goes nowhere.

      All they are allowed to say by their fossil fuel owners, is to make more vacuous fake promises without any intention of doing the least thing about it.

      Sometimes you just have to give them back both polluted oil barrels and say it how it is.

      Thanks for the Guardian reference, I’ll look it up.

      Enjoy your day.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s