The COP26 climate change partnership is slowing down on coal targets

The COP26 climate summit has come to an end, but it will probably not satisfy some of his courageous opponents. Reuters and The Washington Post report that a United Nations-led conference has taken place to arrive a final agreement on efforts to reduce emissions and maintain the Paris Agreement on reducing global warming to 1.5C. There are some areas where the new system (drafted by the UN as the Glasgow Climate Pact) could make significant strides, but there are also concerns that it would not cooperate with countries to enforce strict rules – including migration. coal power.

During the talks that took place on the last day of November 12, delegates from China and India changed the language of the COP26 agreement which called on countries to “reduce” the use of coal instead of “leaving.” While COP26 President Alok Sharma and the international delegation sought strong language, Sharma said it was “important” to protect the agreement. However, there are concerns this will give coal-dependent countries such as China and India for avoiding a strong commitment to air pollution.

Previous protesters have blamed rich countries for failing to keep their promise to provide poor countries with $ 100 billion a year by 2023 to help them deal with climate change. The Glasgow Alliance is committed to developing new plans over the next three years.

The final contract contains some well-known facts. It asks countries to “restart and strengthen” their climate change plans by the end of 2022, e.g. New Scientist he realized. In the same way, there is a way to resolve long-standing disputes in corporate markets around the world. Many countries pledged to reduce methane emissions and restrict deforestation, and the treaty sought to reduce fuel costs. Separately, a The US and China agreed reducing climate change by the 2020s, including a new recognition from China that methane significantly affected global warming.

However, there are fears that the COP26 system is often very weak. It does not set many goals for construction. The final language simply asks countries to reconsider their plans, e.g. The treaty could encourage some countries to take action on the environment, but others may face fewer challenges if they fail.