The final whistle sounded after extra time at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, which officially came to an end with the final closing declaration on Saturday evening. This puts COP26 roughly in the middle of the pack in terms of length. The record is held by the first climate summit, which took place in Berlin in 1995 and ended as early as Friday noon. The longest negotiations took place two years ago in Madrid.
In Paris 2015 at the latest, international climate protection moved out of the diplomatic shadows and into the limelight, and since then, no climate conference has been held without a grace period. After all, it is becoming more and more difficult every year to keep the 1.5-degree target formulated at the time within reach, and in the past two weeks, too, the credo was: “keep one point five alive”.
For long stretches, however, it didn’t look like it. Lukas Scheid has analyzed for you whether the global coal phase-out was successful after all, why it was watered down at the last minute and what the agreement on the completion of the Paris rulebook looks like.
So-called “dark patterns” on the Internet attract the attention of the authorities time and again. With the help of design tricks, websites often mislead consumers into actions that contradict their actual interests. But how can the problem be countered? Torsten Kleinz has taken a closer look at the regulatory approaches.
The 26th UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow ended on Saturday with a veritable diplomatic showdown on the open stage. For over an hour, EU Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans negotiated alongside COP President Alok Sharma and US Special Envoy John Kerry with India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav and China’s chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua. Not behind closed doors but in the main chamber. The result: a “phase-out” of coal-fired power generation became a “phasedown” in a completely non-transparent procedure in which the most powerful nations alone decided on the success or failure of COP26.
Hunched over pieces of paper and arguing over small-scale formulations, the “Glasgow Climate Pact” was finalized – but without final consultation with the smaller, less influential nations. They were banished to the sidelines, even though they too would have liked to make amendments, as Mexico subsequently complained. For them, it meant that the final declaration would no longer be touched.
What happened? India and China – supported by other coal nations such as Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba – did not agree with the wording on the coal phase-out in the last draft of the final declaration. It no longer referred to a general phase-out of coal-fired power generation, but only to the end of the dirtiest coal plants – so-called “unabated coal”. More modern coal plants that reduce emissions, for example, through carbon capture technologies, would not have been affected by this formulation anyway.
But even with this wording, the big coal countries could not come to terms. After the long discussions were concluded in full view of the world, Sharma opened the final plenary session of COP26. Soon afterwards, Yadav from India spoke up and proposed the very same change from “phase-out” to “phasedown” – a clear watering down.
However, the motives can hardly be dismissed out of hand: Today’s industrialized nations have built their economic growth on fossil fuels, among other things. The CO2 footprint per capita in the EU and the US still exceeds that of India and China – in some cases significantly. China and India are demanding that emerging and developing countries be allowed to use the planet’s remaining carbon budget for their economic growth, while Europe, North America, and Australia should take responsibility for their historic global warming debt. They want more financial support for their energy transition. The last-minute push in Glasgow was an expression of that.
Smaller countries swallowed this “bitter pill”, as Liechtenstein’s environment minister Sabine Monauni put it, but sharply criticized the process. Sharma apologized and showed understanding for the indignation but pointed out that the agreement on a final declaration simply had priority. Timmermans, who helped broker the deal, also made a point of expressing his disappointment at the last-minute watering down and pledged EU support to countries that want to phase out coal. He cited the energy partnership with South Africa as a blueprint.
Nevertheless, only a few spoke of a general disappointment after the conclusion of the UN climate conference. For many, the fact that the coal rate and the renunciation of “inefficient” subsidies for fossil energy sources appeared in the final declaration at all was already a historic success. “Regardless of individual words in the final declaration, the political signal remains that the global coal phase-out has been initiated and is irreversible,” German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze announced. Companies and investors around the world must and would take this signal seriously. Admittedly, the SPD politician had wanted clearer statements. “But I also understand that India has gone over a threshold that this country has never crossed before.”
Christoph Bals, political director of Germanwatch, described the new wording, despite the weakening, as a “turning point towards a global phase-out of coal”. Moreover, he said, the international community has emphasized with a clarity unthinkable just two years ago “that we need to get on the 1.5-degree path globally.” The Glasgow climate pact specifies a 45 percent reduction in global emissions by 2030 compared to 2010.
Climate researcher Ottmar Edenhofer sees the outcome of the negotiations first and foremost as a mandate for action. “However, the states must actually comply with it – worldwide, but also here in Germany, much more strongly and quickly than before,” said the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. For the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), the positive initiatives from Glasgow cannot hide the blockades. VCI Managing Director Wolfgang Große Entrup: “Many countries are postponing uncomfortable measures further into the future”.
Nevertheless, it is “very positive” that climate neutrality has become the “new normal”, said Peter Liese, co-negotiator of the EU Parliament in Glasgow. At COP25 2019 in Madrid, the EU was still practically alone with this goal. Especially for the period 2030, the ambitions are still too low. Here, the EU is called upon to motivate other partner countries with its “Fit for 55” package, said the CDU MEP.
According to the Greens in the EU Parliament, the EU delegation in Glasgow did not make sufficient efforts. “Non-binding formulations and the lack of commitment to the coal phase-out show that the Green Deal still has to pass its litmus test,” says EU parliamentarian Jutta Paulus, calling on leaders to harness the momentum of the climate movements. “We have a year to bring the pressure from the streets to the negotiating table at COP27 in Egypt.”
The finalization of the Paris Rulebook is likely to be considered the biggest success of COP26. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which is supposed to regulate the crediting of emission reductions from the financing of climate protection projects abroad to one’s own national climate protection targets (NDCs), had remained open after the past two UN climate conferences. On Saturday, it was finally reported to be a done deal. The voluntary trading of emission reduction certificates for the private sector has also been regulated and will take place in a separate system. To be sure, not all loopholes have been plugged. But the most important issues seem to have been clarified.
This also includes the so-called “corresponding adjustments”, which prevent several countries from being credited with the same emission reductions. Such double counting is ruled out under the new rules. “This is a good result that will enable more climate protection,” commented Environment State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth. The regulation excludes loopholes in the fulfillment of climate protection commitments and creates a financing instrument for additional climate protection in developing countries.
However, there are still gaps in the handling of certificates from the old “Clean Develop Mechanism” established under the Kyoto Protocol. Emission reductions certified after 2013 can be transferred to the new system. The problem with this is that existing climate protection projects that no longer make an additional contribution to climate protection are likely to continue to issue certificates under the new system. “The number of certificates that enter the system in this way without additionally helping the climate is not known exactly,” explains David Ryfisch of Germanwatch. He, therefore, calls for clear rules to be established “so that companies do not stock up on second-rate certificates to achieve their climate neutrality targets on paper”.
On the positive side, however, five percent of the revenue from the certificates under the new mechanism will go to the UN Adaptation Fund to support developing countries particularly affected by climate change, Ryfisch said. Emission reductions that are traded between two countries, however, are excluded from this quasi-tax. Another two percent of the certificates, on the other hand, will be canceled and will benefit the climate without a company being able to credit these savings to itself.
He is European through and through, but Europe has never been an end in itself for him, says Bernd Hüttemann: “For me, it is simply the place where exciting differences nevertheless come together democratically,” explains the Secretary-General of the European Movement Germany (EBD). He has been working in this capacity for the EBD, an intermediary organization funded by the Federal Foreign Office, since 2003.
Even before that, he was close to events in Brussels, for example, as a research assistant at the Berlin Institute for European Politics. “My common thread has always been curiosity about differences, similarities, and bridges of cooperation. And that’s where European policy provides the excellent cement between people who want to overcome borders in terms of content and space, beyond the church tower mentality,” says the 50-year-old.
As Secretary-General of the EMCDDA, Hüttemann is first and foremost a lobbyist, although he does not specialize in any one sector but is generally on the road for European interests. “If you have the ADAC, the Farmers’ Association, the German Federal Youth Ring, the German Trade Union Federation, the Central Association of the German Baking Trade, and the most important parties in your membership, then that creates exclusive access,” he explains. However, the diverse membership with 256 organizations also creates control, and it is good for him as Secretary-General to have clear guidelines.
According to Hüttemann, the fact that lobbying, and especially lobbying in Brussels, enjoys a bad reputation is due to the lack of education on the subject of interest representation. “In my ‘Generation Golf’, European law was not even compulsory for fully qualified lawyers. As far as I know, there is no chair for EU lobbying in Germany,” he argues. At the same time, he says, it is precisely those policy areas that have generated a lot of lobbying – i.e., the economy, the environment, and consumer protections – that have been Europeanized.
“And lobbying is like water, it takes its course. It is simply no wonder that lobbyists spend most of their time where decisions are made: in Brussels more than in Berlin,” Hüttemann continues. From his point of view, the word has spread among critics that the rules for lobbyists in Brussels are stricter than in Berlin. What is missing in the national perception, he said, is honesty and critical curiosity about exerting influence. In this respect, regulation will only help if EU legislation is better understood in its entirety and taken seriously.
In addition to his work for the EBD, Hüttemann also pursues other activities. Among other things, he is a lecturer at the University of Passau and advisor to the Bishops’ Working Group on Europe at the German Bishops’ Conference. When asked about the greatest European policy challenges for the Catholic Church, he says: “Climate protection and the protection of refugees are major issues where supporters of European solutions feel very much at home with the Pope and Catholic teaching, and are even actively supported. Yet, the challenges are in breaking national resistance, even among ultra-conservative Christians.”
It was, therefore, good in his eyes that the Catholic Church showed clear support for Europe’s unity. This clear support can also be expected from Hüttemann in the future, whether as an advisor to decision-makers or as a lobbyist. Constantin Eckner
The final whistle sounded after extra time at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, which officially came to an end with the final closing declaration on Saturday evening. This puts COP26 roughly in the middle of the pack in terms of length. The record is held by the first climate summit, which took place in Berlin in 1995 and ended as early as Friday noon. The longest negotiations took place two years ago in Madrid.
In Paris 2015 at the latest, international climate protection moved out of the diplomatic shadows and into the limelight, and since then, no climate conference has been held without a grace period. After all, it is becoming more and more difficult every year to keep the 1.5-degree target formulated at the time within reach, and in the past two weeks, too, the credo was: “keep one point five alive”.
For long stretches, however, it didn’t look like it. Lukas Scheid has analyzed for you whether the global coal phase-out was successful after all, why it was watered down at the last minute and what the agreement on the completion of the Paris rulebook looks like.
So-called “dark patterns” on the Internet attract the attention of the authorities time and again. With the help of design tricks, websites often mislead consumers into actions that contradict their actual interests. But how can the problem be countered? Torsten Kleinz has taken a closer look at the regulatory approaches.
The 26th UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow ended on Saturday with a veritable diplomatic showdown on the open stage. For over an hour, EU Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans negotiated alongside COP President Alok Sharma and US Special Envoy John Kerry with India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav and China’s chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua. Not behind closed doors but in the main chamber. The result: a “phase-out” of coal-fired power generation became a “phasedown” in a completely non-transparent procedure in which the most powerful nations alone decided on the success or failure of COP26.
Hunched over pieces of paper and arguing over small-scale formulations, the “Glasgow Climate Pact” was finalized – but without final consultation with the smaller, less influential nations. They were banished to the sidelines, even though they too would have liked to make amendments, as Mexico subsequently complained. For them, it meant that the final declaration would no longer be touched.
What happened? India and China – supported by other coal nations such as Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba – did not agree with the wording on the coal phase-out in the last draft of the final declaration. It no longer referred to a general phase-out of coal-fired power generation, but only to the end of the dirtiest coal plants – so-called “unabated coal”. More modern coal plants that reduce emissions, for example, through carbon capture technologies, would not have been affected by this formulation anyway.
But even with this wording, the big coal countries could not come to terms. After the long discussions were concluded in full view of the world, Sharma opened the final plenary session of COP26. Soon afterwards, Yadav from India spoke up and proposed the very same change from “phase-out” to “phasedown” – a clear watering down.
However, the motives can hardly be dismissed out of hand: Today’s industrialized nations have built their economic growth on fossil fuels, among other things. The CO2 footprint per capita in the EU and the US still exceeds that of India and China – in some cases significantly. China and India are demanding that emerging and developing countries be allowed to use the planet’s remaining carbon budget for their economic growth, while Europe, North America, and Australia should take responsibility for their historic global warming debt. They want more financial support for their energy transition. The last-minute push in Glasgow was an expression of that.
Smaller countries swallowed this “bitter pill”, as Liechtenstein’s environment minister Sabine Monauni put it, but sharply criticized the process. Sharma apologized and showed understanding for the indignation but pointed out that the agreement on a final declaration simply had priority. Timmermans, who helped broker the deal, also made a point of expressing his disappointment at the last-minute watering down and pledged EU support to countries that want to phase out coal. He cited the energy partnership with South Africa as a blueprint.
Nevertheless, only a few spoke of a general disappointment after the conclusion of the UN climate conference. For many, the fact that the coal rate and the renunciation of “inefficient” subsidies for fossil energy sources appeared in the final declaration at all was already a historic success. “Regardless of individual words in the final declaration, the political signal remains that the global coal phase-out has been initiated and is irreversible,” German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze announced. Companies and investors around the world must and would take this signal seriously. Admittedly, the SPD politician had wanted clearer statements. “But I also understand that India has gone over a threshold that this country has never crossed before.”
Christoph Bals, political director of Germanwatch, described the new wording, despite the weakening, as a “turning point towards a global phase-out of coal”. Moreover, he said, the international community has emphasized with a clarity unthinkable just two years ago “that we need to get on the 1.5-degree path globally.” The Glasgow climate pact specifies a 45 percent reduction in global emissions by 2030 compared to 2010.
Climate researcher Ottmar Edenhofer sees the outcome of the negotiations first and foremost as a mandate for action. “However, the states must actually comply with it – worldwide, but also here in Germany, much more strongly and quickly than before,” said the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. For the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), the positive initiatives from Glasgow cannot hide the blockades. VCI Managing Director Wolfgang Große Entrup: “Many countries are postponing uncomfortable measures further into the future”.
Nevertheless, it is “very positive” that climate neutrality has become the “new normal”, said Peter Liese, co-negotiator of the EU Parliament in Glasgow. At COP25 2019 in Madrid, the EU was still practically alone with this goal. Especially for the period 2030, the ambitions are still too low. Here, the EU is called upon to motivate other partner countries with its “Fit for 55” package, said the CDU MEP.
According to the Greens in the EU Parliament, the EU delegation in Glasgow did not make sufficient efforts. “Non-binding formulations and the lack of commitment to the coal phase-out show that the Green Deal still has to pass its litmus test,” says EU parliamentarian Jutta Paulus, calling on leaders to harness the momentum of the climate movements. “We have a year to bring the pressure from the streets to the negotiating table at COP27 in Egypt.”
The finalization of the Paris Rulebook is likely to be considered the biggest success of COP26. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which is supposed to regulate the crediting of emission reductions from the financing of climate protection projects abroad to one’s own national climate protection targets (NDCs), had remained open after the past two UN climate conferences. On Saturday, it was finally reported to be a done deal. The voluntary trading of emission reduction certificates for the private sector has also been regulated and will take place in a separate system. To be sure, not all loopholes have been plugged. But the most important issues seem to have been clarified.
This also includes the so-called “corresponding adjustments”, which prevent several countries from being credited with the same emission reductions. Such double counting is ruled out under the new rules. “This is a good result that will enable more climate protection,” commented Environment State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth. The regulation excludes loopholes in the fulfillment of climate protection commitments and creates a financing instrument for additional climate protection in developing countries.
However, there are still gaps in the handling of certificates from the old “Clean Develop Mechanism” established under the Kyoto Protocol. Emission reductions certified after 2013 can be transferred to the new system. The problem with this is that existing climate protection projects that no longer make an additional contribution to climate protection are likely to continue to issue certificates under the new system. “The number of certificates that enter the system in this way without additionally helping the climate is not known exactly,” explains David Ryfisch of Germanwatch. He, therefore, calls for clear rules to be established “so that companies do not stock up on second-rate certificates to achieve their climate neutrality targets on paper”.
On the positive side, however, five percent of the revenue from the certificates under the new mechanism will go to the UN Adaptation Fund to support developing countries particularly affected by climate change, Ryfisch said. Emission reductions that are traded between two countries, however, are excluded from this quasi-tax. Another two percent of the certificates, on the other hand, will be canceled and will benefit the climate without a company being able to credit these savings to itself.
He is European through and through, but Europe has never been an end in itself for him, says Bernd Hüttemann: “For me, it is simply the place where exciting differences nevertheless come together democratically,” explains the Secretary-General of the European Movement Germany (EBD). He has been working in this capacity for the EBD, an intermediary organization funded by the Federal Foreign Office, since 2003.
Even before that, he was close to events in Brussels, for example, as a research assistant at the Berlin Institute for European Politics. “My common thread has always been curiosity about differences, similarities, and bridges of cooperation. And that’s where European policy provides the excellent cement between people who want to overcome borders in terms of content and space, beyond the church tower mentality,” says the 50-year-old.
As Secretary-General of the EMCDDA, Hüttemann is first and foremost a lobbyist, although he does not specialize in any one sector but is generally on the road for European interests. “If you have the ADAC, the Farmers’ Association, the German Federal Youth Ring, the German Trade Union Federation, the Central Association of the German Baking Trade, and the most important parties in your membership, then that creates exclusive access,” he explains. However, the diverse membership with 256 organizations also creates control, and it is good for him as Secretary-General to have clear guidelines.
According to Hüttemann, the fact that lobbying, and especially lobbying in Brussels, enjoys a bad reputation is due to the lack of education on the subject of interest representation. “In my ‘Generation Golf’, European law was not even compulsory for fully qualified lawyers. As far as I know, there is no chair for EU lobbying in Germany,” he argues. At the same time, he says, it is precisely those policy areas that have generated a lot of lobbying – i.e., the economy, the environment, and consumer protections – that have been Europeanized.
“And lobbying is like water, it takes its course. It is simply no wonder that lobbyists spend most of their time where decisions are made: in Brussels more than in Berlin,” Hüttemann continues. From his point of view, the word has spread among critics that the rules for lobbyists in Brussels are stricter than in Berlin. What is missing in the national perception, he said, is honesty and critical curiosity about exerting influence. In this respect, regulation will only help if EU legislation is better understood in its entirety and taken seriously.
In addition to his work for the EBD, Hüttemann also pursues other activities. Among other things, he is a lecturer at the University of Passau and advisor to the Bishops’ Working Group on Europe at the German Bishops’ Conference. When asked about the greatest European policy challenges for the Catholic Church, he says: “Climate protection and the protection of refugees are major issues where supporters of European solutions feel very much at home with the Pope and Catholic teaching, and are even actively supported. Yet, the challenges are in breaking national resistance, even among ultra-conservative Christians.”
It was, therefore, good in his eyes that the Catholic Church showed clear support for Europe’s unity. This clear support can also be expected from Hüttemann in the future, whether as an advisor to decision-makers or as a lobbyist. Constantin Eckner
