By: Richard Yates, EAC Legal & Policy Intern
What should we make of COP26? Protesters and youth certainly had a healthy dose of skepticism that something different would come out of Glasgow (as opposed to the 25 other climate conferences to date).
The sheer imbalance of industry representatives to governments, with fossil fuel companies having more than 500 lobbyists present, more than any country’s delegation, was also deeply concerning.
And then there’s the bombshell report from the Washington Post, calling into question the efficacy of the entire international climate apparatus. It estimates that international climate emissions may be as much as 23% greater than the figure reported by countries, an amount roughly equivalent to the total emissions of China.
Yes, the process of reaching a global consensus on what to do about the climate crisis has been frustrating, slow, and, let’s face it, ineffective. After all, at the end of the day, countries are pledging to reduce emissions under a non-binding framework.
But what was interesting about this COP, as opposed to its predecessors, is all the action taking place outside the formal negotiations. Rather than deals struck through the conference proceedings, countries like the U.S. enticed other states to sign-on to independent pledges. These agreements reached several important climate issues, including:
methane reductions;
forest protection;
scaling up renewables; and
funding for adaptation.
Yet, even with these pledges, it is easy to be skeptical about the meaningfulness of the international process. Yet another example of the problems of reaching consensus in the formal negotiations occurred late in the game, when China and India weakened language intended to shutter coal plants.
All of these shortcomings speak to the imperative of acting locally.
California, for its part, showed-up with a huge delegation, including 15 members of the state legislature as well as dozens of NGO leaders. Participants described feeling like rockstars when interacting with their international counterparts. Indeed, with a $15 billion climate budget, the state has allocated more to climate than the entire budgets of small countries.
As a laboratory for climate innovation, California is setting the agenda for effective climate policy. This means that as we consider never-before-tested adaptation projects like carbon sequestration, implement new policies to protect environmental justice communities, or consider the relationship between healthy, human-sustaining ecology and climate mitigation, the entire world is watching.
What does it mean to be a Californian judging COP26? We should certainly be grateful that our state leaders have taken bold steps towards reconfiguring the world’s fifth-largest economy to promote a climate-forward vision. And we can be pleased that nations have pledged to reduce emissions and scale adaptation. However, for us to truly have meaningful climate impacts, we still must act locally.
The continuing paradox of climate change is that while it is felt internationally, notwithstanding the achievements of this most recent COP, the climate crisis will only be solved through our actions in our local communities.
