The ultimate guide to why the COP26 summit ended in failure and disappointment (despite bright spots)

By APR editor -

 

November 15, 2021

In an emotional final speech, COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for this last-minute change.

ANALYSIS: By Robert Hales, Griffith University and Brendan Mackey, Griffith University

After two hard-fought weeks of negotiations, the Glasgow climate change summit is, at last, over. All 197 participating countries adopted the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact, despite an 11th hour intervention by India in which the final agreement was watered down from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down”.

In an emotional final speech, COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for this last-minute change.

His apology goes to the heart of the goals of COP26 in Glasgow: the hope it would deliver outcomes matching the urgent “code red” action needed to achieve the Paris Agreement target.

• READ MORE: COP26: experts react to the UN climate summit and Glasgow Pact
• COP26 leaves too many loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. Here are 5 of them
• Other COP26 reports

COP26 GLASGOW 2021

At the summit’s outset, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to “keep the goal of 1.5℃ alive”, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the global economy, and to phase out coal.

So, was COP26 a failure? If we evaluate this using the summits original stated goals, the answer is yes, it fell short. Two big ticket items weren’t realised: renewing targets for 2030 that align with limiting warming to 1.5℃, and an agreement on accelerating the phase-out of coal.

But among the failures, there were important decisions and notable bright spots. So let’s take a look at the summit’s defining issues.

Weak 2030 targets
The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2℃ this century, and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5℃. Catastrophic impacts will be unleashed beyond this point, such as sea level rise and more intense and frequent natural disasters.

But new projections from Climate Action Tracker show even if all COP26 pledges are met, the planet is on track to warm by 2.1℃ — or 2.4℃ if only 2030 targets are met.

Despite the Australian government’s recent climate announcements, this nation’s 2030 target remains the same as in 2015. If all countries adopted such meagre near-term targets, global temperature rise would be on track for up to 3℃.

Technically, the 1.5℃ limit is still within reach because, under the Glasgow pact, countries are asked to update their 2030 targets in a year’s time. However, as Sharma said, “the pulse of 1.5 is weak”.

And as Australia’s experience shows, domestic politics rather than international pressure is often the force driving climate policy. So there are no guarantees Australia or other nations will deliver greater ambition in 2022.

Phase down, not out
India’s intervention to change the final wording to “phase down” coal rather than “phase out” dampens the urgency to shift away from coal.

India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the United States. The country relies heavily on coal, and coal-powered generation is expected to grow by 4.6 percent each year to 2024.

India was the most prominent objector to the “phase out” wording, but also had support from China.

And US climate envoy John Kerry argued that carbon capture and storage technology could be developed further, to trap emissions at the source and store them underground.

Carbon capture and storage is a controversial proposition for climate action. It is not proven at scale, and we don’t yet know if captured emissions stored underground will eventually return to the atmosphere. And around the world, relatively few large-scale underground storage locations exist.

It is hard to see this expensive technology ever being cost-competitive with cheap renewable energy.

In a crucial outcome, COP26 also finalised rules for global carbon trading, known as Article 6 under the Paris Agreement. However under the rules, the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions and carry on polluting. Combined with the “phasing down” change, this will see fossil fuel emissions continue.

It wasn’t all bad
Despite the shortcomings, COP26 led to a number of important positive outcomes.

The world has taken an unambiguous turn away from fossil fuel as a source of energy. And the 1.5℃ global warming target has taken centre stage, with the recognition that reaching this target will require rapid, deep and sustained emissions reductions of 45 percent by 2030, relative to 2010 levels.

What’s more, the pact emphasises the importance to mitigation of nature and ecosystems, including protecting forests and biodiversity. This comes on top of a side deal struck by Australia and 123 other countries promising to end deforestation by 2030.

The pact also urges countries to fully deliver on an outstanding promise to deliver US$100 billion a year for five years to developing countries vulnerable to climate damage. It also emphasises the importance of transparency in implementing the pledges.

Nations are also invited to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022. In support of this, it was agreed to hold a high-level ministerial roundtable meeting each year focused on raising ambition out to 2030.

The US and China climate agreement is also cause for cautious optimism.

Despite the world not being on track for the 1.5℃ goal, momentum is headed in the right direction. And the mere fact that a reduction in coal use was directly addressed in the final text signals change may be possible.

But whether it comes in the small window we have left to stop catastrophic climate change remains to be seen.

Dr Robert Hales, director of the Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University and Dr Brendan Mackey, director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Programme, Griffith University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

COP26: experts react to the UN climate summit and Glasgow Pact

November 15, 2021 

All 197 countries represented at COP26 signed the pact. 

Robert Perry/EPA

We asked experts from around the world for their reaction to the outcomes of this year’s UN climate summit, COP26, including the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed by all 197 countries attending the talks. Here’s what they had to say about the deals that were made. 

Deals and targets

A starting point for future action.

The Glasgow Climate Pact is not perfect, but still strengthens the Paris agreement in several ways. Acknowledging that there is no safe limit for global warming, the Pact resolves to limit global warming to 1.5°C, instead of the Paris text of “well below 2°C”. Crucially it also delivers a strong framework for tracking commitments against real-world progress.

The summit was pitched as the last chance to “keep 1.5°C alive” – holding temperatures to less than 1.5°C above their pre-industrial levels. 2020 was also supposed be the year when developed countries would provide at least US$100 billion a year of financial aid to help developing countries adapt to mounting storms and droughts – a pledge that still has not been met – and the transition to clean energy was supposed to start being rolled out.

Perhaps concerned that national targets collectively were nowhere near good enough to keep 1.5°C alive – we were heading for more like 2.4°C at best – the UK government used its presidency programme to supplement these targets with a series of press-friendly announcements of non-binding pledges to cut methane emissions, end deforestation and phase out coal.

These were further supplemented by the “race to zero” initiatives, a series of announcements by states, cities and businesses on a range of decarbonisation approaches.

While these are genuine attempts at climate action, success hinges on whether these developments can swiftly make into raised national commitments within the next year. The pact now explicitly “requests parties to revisit and strengthen” their 2030 goals, meaning 1.5°C is down but not out.

Piers Forster, Professor of Physical Climate Change & Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate University of Leeds

Greenhouse gas emissions

Progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough.

The Glasgow Climate Pact is incremental progress and not the breakthrough moment needed to curb the worst impacts of climate change. The UK government as host and therefore president of COP26 wanted to “keep 1.5°C alive”, the stronger goal of the Paris Agreement. But at best we can say the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is on life support – it has a pulse but it’s nearly dead.

Before COP26, the world was on track for 2.7°C of warming, based on commitments by countries, and expectation of the changes in technology. Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade, by some key countries, have reduced this to a best estimate of 2.4°C.

More countries also announced long-term net zero goals. One of the most important was India’s pledge to reach net zero emissions by 2070. Critically, the country said it would get off to a quick start with a massive expansion of renewable energy in the next ten years so that it accounts for 50% of its total usage, reducing its emissions in 2030 by 1 billion tonnes (from a current total of around 2.5 billion).

A world warming by 2.4°C is still clearly very far from 1.5°C. What remains is a near-term emissions gap, as global emissions look likely to flatline this decade rather than showing the sharp cuts necessary to be on the 1.5°C trajectory the pact calls for. There is a gulf between long-term net zero goals and plans to deliver emissions cuts this decade.

Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science at University College London and University of Leeds, and Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, University College London.

Read more: Five things you need to know about the Glasgow Climate Pact

The Glasgow Pact only agreed to ‘phase down’ coal. 

Peter Gudella/Shutterstock

Fossil fuel finance

Some progress on ending subsidies, but the final deal fell short.

The most important outcomes from COP26 will be directly related to two “F-words”: finance and fossil fuels. Close attention should be paid to pledges for new finance for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. But we must remember the other side of the equation — the urgent need to cut off funding for fossil fuel projects. As the International Energy Agency made clear earlier this year, there is no room in the 1.5℃ carbon budget for any new investments in fossil fuels.

The commitment from more than 25 countries to shut off new international finance for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022 is one of the biggest successes to come out of Glasgow. This could shift more than US$24 billion a year of public funds out of fossil fuels and into clean energy.

There was also short-lived hope that the COP decision would call on parties to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels.” According to the United Nations, eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies would reduce global carbon emissions up to 10% by 2030. Sadly before the pact was agreed, the text on coal was watered down, the phrase “phasing out” was replaced with “phasing down”, and the weasel word “inefficient” was inserted before “subsidies for fossil fuels.”

The fact that not even a weak reference to fossil fuels can survive in the decision text speaks volumes about how divorced the COP process is from the realities of the climate crisis. And this is unlikely to change as long as fossil fuel lobbyists are permitted to attend.

Kyla Tienhaara, Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment, Queen’s University, Ontario

Read more: COP26 leaves too many loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. Here are 5 of them

Nature

A declaration on deforestation, but it isn’t binding.

Nature was a big theme at COP26, and the importance of Indigenous peoples’ rights and tackling commodity supply chains that drive deforestation were widely recognised across the conference.

Over 135 countries signed a declaration agreeing to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, although Indonesia subsequently backed away from the commitment, underscoring the importance of binding decisions rather than voluntary declarations for important outcomes. Donors pledged US$1.7 billion to support Indigenous peoples and local communities’ forest stewardship. Twenty-eight of the largest consumer and producer countries of beef, soy, cocoa and palm oil discussed a roadmap identifying areas of work to tackle deforestation in commodity supply chains.

However, declarations can distract from the negotiated outcomes of the UN process. For nature, an important outcome included in the final Glasgow Climate Pact is that it “emphasizes the importance of protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through forests and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems”.

Such recognition of the role of nature is critical to enhance the inclusion of ecosystem restoration in countries’ climate commitments. Yet, nature alone cannot deliver the 1.5°C goal without other efforts, including phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies, providing adequate finance to developing countries, and protecting human rights.

Kate Dooley, research fellow in ecosystem-based pathways and climate change, University of Melbourne

Read more: Forests can't handle all the net-zero emissions plans – companies and countries expect nature to offset too much carbon

More than 30 countries have pledged to end sales of internal combustion vehicles. guteksk7/Shutterstock

Transportation

Big pledges to boost electric vehicles.

COP26 gave more attention than ever to transportation, with mixed results thanks to the mess of global aspirations and national politics. Transport is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in many countries and, after renewable electricity, the second most important strategy for reaching net zero emissions.

More than 30 countries and six automakers pledged to end sales of internal combustion vehicles by 2040. The list had some notable no-shows – including the US, Germany, Japan and China, and the two largest automotive companies, Volkswagen and Toyota – but was still impressive. The shift to electric vehicles was already unequivocal. Electric vehicles (EVs) reached 20% of sales in Europe and China in recent months, and both are headed for full electrification of new cars by 2035 or so.

The transition to electric and hydrogen trucks is about to follow a similar path. Fifteen countries agreed to work toward transitioning all new trucks and buses to zero emissions by 2040. California already requires 70% of sales in most truck categories to be zero emissions by 2035. China is on a similar trajectory. These are non-binding agreements, but they are made easier by the roughly 50% drop in battery costs since the Paris accord.

Aviation is tougher because electrification is currently only possible for short flights and smaller planes. The US, UK and others agreed to promote sustainable aviation fuels. It’s a start.

Some lament the focus on EVs further locking in car-centric living. But to reduce greenhouse gases, vehicle electrification (including hydrogen) is the most effective and economic approach to decarbonize transportation – by far.

Daniel Sperling, Founding Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis

Read more: Seven reasons global transport is so hard to decarbonise

Cities and buildings

Now firmly on the agenda in national plans and global deal.

At the very least COP26 has put the built environment more firmly on the agenda with a full day devoted to it – it only rated half a day at Paris in 2015 and before that had little formal acknowledgement. Given buildings are responsible for 40% of global carbon emissions many argue they should receive even more attention, with the World Green Building Council stating they should be “elevated to a critical climate solution”.

There are now 136 countries that have included buildings as part of their climate action plans (known as NDCs), up from 88 at the last major COP. As NDCs are the legal mechanism COP relies on, that matters.

Local governments are, in general, more engaged with the built environment than national governments. This is where planning and building regulations are approved and development strategies established, which dictate how we build our houses, offices and community facilities. The fact cities create over 70% of energy-related emissions reinforces their importance. So expect local authorities to take a more active role in future.

It is clear that “embodied carbon” and “Scope 3 emissions” will become everyday language for construction pretty quickly, so make sure you learn what they mean.

Away from the formal agenda, the biggest tension was the debate between technology and consumption. Lots of industry groups at COP26 were talking about decarbonising steel and concrete production with new, and as yet unproven, technologies. We do need that, but more importantly we need to change the way we design buildings so they use materials that are intrinsically low-carbon, such as timber, and to consume less resources in general.

But without doubt, the biggest win is the specific reference to energy efficiency in the adopted text of the Glasgow Climate Pact. This is the first time energy efficiency has been explicitly referenced in the COP process, and energy efficiency is the key action where buildings have a disproportionate role in mitigating climate change.

Article 36 calls on governments to “accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination” of actions including “rapidly scaling up” energy efficiency measures. Note the urgency of the language. There is now a legal imperative for all countries to align their building regulations with a low carbon future.

Ran Boydell, Visiting Lecturer in Sustainable Development, Heriot-Watt University

Read more: Embodied carbon: why truly net zero buildings could still be decades away

Renewable hydrogen use hasn’t been proven at scale.

Energy transitions

Discussions relied on unproven technologies.

COP26 featured hundreds of commitments to power past coal and natural gas and offer just transitions to workers and communities, mostly with a focus on renewable energy transitions.

However, one concern I have coming out of COP26 is that discussions are often promoting technologies that are not currently market ready or scalable, especially nuclear small modular reactors, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

According to the International Energy Agency, 38 technologies are ready for deployment right now, including solar photovoltaic, geothermal and wind power. Yet none has been deployed at the scale we need to achieve 1.5℃. Renewable energy, currently 13% of the global energy system, needs to reach 80% or more.

Globally, a transition to renewable energy will cost between US$22.5 trillion and US$139 trillion. What’s needed are policies that support a mix of innovations, accelerate the scale-up of renewable energy and modernize power grids — including the right for consumers and citizens to generate power to sell to their neighbours and the grid. They also need to support business models that offer revenue to communities and jobs for those in industries in transition.

Christina E. Hoicka, Associate Professor of Geography and Civil Engineering, University of Victoria
Science and innovation

Low-carbon steel, concrete and next generation biofuels received a boost.

Science and Innovation Day at COP26 saw interesting new schemes announced, and three were particularly important.

First, the UK, Germany, Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates formed an initiative for developing low carbon steel and concrete, to decarbonise construction. Their stated goal is net-zero steel and concrete for public projects by 2050, with an earlier 2030 target yet to be announced. That is an exciting project, as construction materials like these contribute about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, a goal of creating low-carbon health care systems was also announced, with 47 countries joining that initiative. While the goal of net zero healthcare by 2050 is welcome, it is hardly an additional commitment. If a nation achieves net zero, its health system will have met that criterion anyway.

Third, Mission Innovation is a collaboration between governments aimed at accelerating technologies that will reduce emissions. The Netherlands and India are leading a welcome bio-refinery program, aiming to make bio-based alternative fuels and chemicals economically attractive.

Less useful is the “carbon dioxide removal” project, led by Saudi Arabia, US and Canada. Its goal is a net annual reduction of 100 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2030. As global emissions are now 35 billion tonnes a year, this project aims to prolong fossil fuel use by capturing only a token, tiny fraction.

Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University
Gender

The slow progress on gender-sensitive climate policies doesn’t match the urgency of the situation.

The relationship between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it’s supreme decision-making body – the Conference of the Parties (COP) – and gender equality is one that started late, but there has been some (slow) progress.

Looking back to 2001 -– when the sole concern COP had in terms of gender equality was with women’s representation and participation in the Convention itself -– it is clear that some progress has been made. The establishment of the Women and Gender Constituency in 2009, the Lima Work Program on Gender of 2014, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in 2015 (which emphasised that climate actions must be gender-responsive) are proof of this progress.

COP26 has also seen important pledges by different countries to expedite work on gender and climate change. For example, the UK announced the allocation of £165 million to foster gender equality in climate change action, Bolivia pledged to reflect gender data in its Nationally Determined Contributions and Canada pledged that 80% of its climate investments over the next five years will target gender equality outcomes.

Read more: Study reveals the gender gap in Tanzania, Uganda climate policies

Yet, progress on the advancement of gender equality in climate change action does not match the urgency of the situation. Considering that, in many contexts, women are disproportionally more adversely affected by the effects of climate change and considering that climate change is threatening to widen social inequality, it is imperative to expedite action on gender equality.

This is particularly important in sectors such as agriculture and natural resource management, which are heavily susceptible to changes in climate and which constitute the foundation for rural women’s livelihoods across the globe. In a study we published last year, we show how the integration of gender remains generally weak in Nationally Determined Contributions and how these plans tend to not tackle the structural causes of gender inequality. The latter is of paramount importance. If climate actions do not identify, address, and confront the discriminatory social norms and structural causes that are creating gender inequalities in the first place, the gender equality initiatives and policies will likely neither be sustainable nor reach their maximum potential.

Mariola Acosta, is a research fellow at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the University of Wageningen.

This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.
Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.

Authors

Christina E. Hoicka
Associate Professor of Geography and Civil Engineering, University of Victoria,BC

Christina E. Hoicka receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the New Frontiers in Research Fund, Horizon 2020, the Transition Accelerator, the Canada Research Chair Secretariat, and the McConnell Foundation. She is affiliated with Women and Inclusivity in Sustainable Energy Research (WISER) Network

Daniel Sperling
Daniel Sperling is a Friend of The Conversation.
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Founding Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis

Daniel Sperling has a seat on the California Air Resources Board. The institutes he directs receive funding from foundations, automotive and energy companies, and local, state and national governments.

Ian Lowe
Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University

Ian Lowe received funding in the 1980s from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council for a study of Australia's future energy needs. He is a former President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Kate Dooley
Research Fellow, Climate & Energy College, The University of Melbourne

Kate Dooley receives funding from One Earth Philanthropy.

Kyla Tienhaara
Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment, Queen's University, Ontario

Kyla Tienhaara receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs Program and SSHRC (Government of Canada).

Mariola Acosta Francés
Research fellow, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the University of Wageningen, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

Mariola Acosta Francés received funding for her PhD Research from the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Research Program.

Mark Maslin
Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Co-Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership, a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee and a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board and Sheep Included Ltd Advisory Board. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP, and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

Piers Forster
Professor of Physical Climate Change; Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds

Piers Forster receives funding from UK and EU research councils. He sit on the UK Climate Change Committee, but is writing this in a personal capacity.

Ran Boydell
Associate Professor in Sustainable Development, Heriot-Watt University

Ran Boydell has received funding from the Scottish Government for various projects about sustainability in the built environment.

Simon Lewis
Professor of Global Change Science at University of Leeds and, UCL

Simon Lewis has received funding from Natural Environment Research Council, the Royal Society, the European Union, the Leverhulme Trust, the Centre for International Forestry, National Parks Agency of Gabon, Microsoft Research, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Greenpeace Fund, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Children's Investment Fund.

Do not despair – the Cop26 agreement contains three major victories
Christiana Figueres

We have to change the entire global economy to combat the climate crisis. We’re not there yet, but we are getting closer

Delegates at the Cop26 climate 

conference in Glasgow on Saturday. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters

Mon 15 Nov 2021 

If a bus were hurtling towards a child in the middle of the road, no one nearby would take merely one step to get that child out of the way. They would rush, at speeds previously unbeknownst to them, using every muscle in their body, to get that child to safety.

On the climate crisis, a bus is careering toward us and we have still not flexed all our muscle power to get ourselves or future generations to safety.

Emissions continue to rise. The loss and damage is devastating. Trust has been breached. The resulting frustration, anger and incredulity at the pace of progress is warranted. As activists of all stripes remind us constantly, we need systems change, not climate change. And they are absolutely right.

At the same time we should understand our double predicament. First, we are actually in the midst of a systems change, and it is precisely the systemic nature of the change that slows the pace for now – until we hit positive tipping points. If we only had to transform one sector, or move one country off fossil fuels, we would have done so long ago. But that is not what it takes. All sectors of the global economy have to be decarbonised, even the hard-to-abate ones, and all countries must switch to clean technologies, especially those that have depended on exporting or importing fossil fuels for decades. It is a deliberate metamorphosis that is more complex and far reaching than any transformation we have ever attempted.

Second, just as the transition gathers pace moving from gradual to exponential, the window within which we need to achieve it constantly shrinks. The speed of change foreseen in Paris in 2015 has been superseded by improved scientific understanding and the shocking escalation of impacts being felt by the most vulnerable. We now know that we must halve global emissions no later than 2030. It is as though the bus suddenly accelerated as we were approaching the child.

And yet none of the above can keep us from doing what needs to be done – the consequences are simply too dire.

Cop26 had to reset the pace of transformation to be commensurate with the increasing urgency we face. And it was challenging. Diametrically opposed interests were exposed. Pressure inside the negotiating rooms was intense. Common ground was elusive. Compromise was inevitable. And still, the Cop increased the speed of action with at least three resets.

First, 1.5C is the new 2C. The final decision reflects the intention to keep 1.5C not just alive, but front and centre of our efforts. The first set of reduction commitments registered in Paris brought the forecast trajectory of a 6C rise above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century to a 3.7C path, better but catastrophic for humanity. The second set of reductions committed to in Glasgow has taken us down to a 2.4C course, better again but still dangerous. We are still far from where we need to be, but we now know that the task is to not surpass the ceiling of 1.5C. No one in their right mind is talking about “well below 2C” any more. The science is undisputed, and this understanding will continue to force us to accelerate all efforts over time.

Second: the yearly ratchet. Thanks to a strong push by the most vulnerable countries, the third set of national efforts to reduce emissions and contribute to climate solutions is now scheduled for the end of 2022, instead of waiting another five years. This is a much-needed tightening of the multilateral system: ratcheting commitments annually to ensure we are halving emissions by 2030 is what will keep 1.5C in sight. It comes with complications – including with emissions accounting – but this accelerated pace already makes the previous five-yearly schedule look outrageously out of whack.

What are the key points of the Glasgow climate pact?

Third: nature is finally recognised for its solution potential. All the emissions reductions in the world will mean nothing to future generations if we do not also protect and restore nature. Nature is our greatest protector from the worst impacts of the climate crisis, and this was recognised with $20bn in commitments of public and private money for forest protection – a first for a climate Cop. In addition, more than 100 countries pledged to reverse deforestation by 2030 at the latest. The decision text rightly emphasises the importance of protecting, conserving and restoring nature in order to achieve the Paris agreement temperature goal. So, while the energy revolution – from coal to clean – is already well under way, Cop26 marks a new push to achieve the necessary land use revolution this decade: from degeneration to regeneration if we are to keep 1.5C in sight.

There are remaining areas of deep disappointment; the “phase-out of coal” being weakened to a “phase-down of unabated coal”, for example. The intended finance facility for developing countries was reduced to a dialogue. But the most acutely felt, glaring void is the lack of support for the most vulnerable nations to cope with quickly accelerating loss of homes and livelihoods and damage to lands and infrastructure. Much work needs to be done to address this before nations reconvene in Egypt for Cop27 – as the climate crisis is hurtling towards us at terrifying speed.

The success of Cop26 lies in the eyes of the beholder. Many will say that we continue to irresponsibly spin the political wheels, and from some vantage points that is true, but no one can deny that Cop26 has hastened the speed of the wheels of change. However, the question still remains, will we ultimately end up under the bus, or will the added speed of action deliver us and our descendants to safety? The answer to that is up to all of us.

Christiana Figueres was head of the UN climate change convention that achieved the Paris agreement in 2015, and is the author of The Future We Choose.

Lighting up Africa: Is universal energy access achievable?

Alexander Ayertey Odonkor

A worker inspects photovoltaic solar panels in an array at the Senergy Santhiou Mekhe PV solar plant in Thies, Senegal. /Getty

Editor's note: Alexander Ayertey Odonkor is an economic consultant, chartered economist and chartered financial analyst with a keen interest in the economic landscape of countries in Asia and Africa. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Providing access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for everyone is one of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While access to adequate and affordable energy is crucial for improving essential social services such as healthcare and education, strengthening access to this invaluable resource also fosters significant growth in the manufacturing, agriculture and small and medium-sized enterprises sectors and other related industries, all of which stimulates economic growth, facilitates job creation, alleviates poverty and reduces inequality. Despite the numerous social and economic gains that could be derived from expanding access to energy, policymakers in some parts of the world are still grappling with meeting rising energy demand. Notable among them is Africa.

Highlights of the 2021 edition of "Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report," a joint report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), International Renewable Energy Agency, United Nations Statistics Division, the World Health Organization and the World Bank that monitored and assessed achievements in the global quest for universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy by 2030 reveals that although the global access to electricity in recent years has increased substantially, this progress is mixed. For example, across the African continent, the COVID-19 pandemic is wiping out years of progress in energy access, as the economic disruption caused by the pandemic is pushing millions of people into poverty, thereby increasing the share of the region's population that cannot afford electricity.

To reverse this trend and be on course to achieve universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy, the region's current electricity access rate will have to increase by more than threefold between now and 2030. This means that to attain universal access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa alone, about 85 million people will have to be connected every year through 2030. Before the COVID-19 related surge in the share of people without electricity, the access rate in sub-Saharan Africa was 46 percent in 2019. Then the region hosted 570 million people who did not have access to electricity, representing three-quarters of the global population deficit.

Even though sub-Saharan Africa has the worst access rate in the world, the region experienced significant progress in energy access between 2017 and 2019, which led to a sizable decline in the population of people without access to electricity. This achievement was realized because progress in access to electricity outpaced Africa's population growth.

Could the progress derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic be brought back on track? Or, could making provisions to meet the region's rapidly growing energy demand become a wild goose chase, particularly as Africa is home to one of the world's fastest-growing populations. Between now and 2040, one-in-two people added to the global population will be African as the continent is set to become the world's most populous region by 2023.

To put this into perspective, Africa's rising urban population far exceeds China's urban population within the two decades the country experienced an economic and energy boom. The rapid growth in Africa's urban population will require a corresponding increase in the continent's energy capacity to meet the rising energy demand for the industrial sector, households and improve social services, such as education, transportation and healthcare.

 

A solar-powered water pump and water tower installed in Bintang, Gambia. /Getty

For a continent that is excessively rich in renewable energy sources, such as solar, hydro, wind, etc., why is providing affordable, sustainable and modern energy for a rising population so? Well, the nitty-gritty of the region's energy situation is that successive governments in many countries have failed to invest adequately in the energy sector for several decades. Home to 17 percent of the world's population, Africa accounts for a paltry 4 percent of global power supply investment.

For example, although Africa is home to the world's largest solar resources, the region's entire installed solar photovoltaic generates five gigawatts or less than 1 percent of the global total. Africa's share of investment in electricity generation and grids ranks among the lowest in the world. The truth is that Africa needs a substantial and timely scale-up in energy sector investments to achieve universal energy access. To bring this into fruition, China, the continent's largest infrastructure investor, has been committing adequate resources spanning concessional loans, equity financing, grants and technical expertise to revamp the region's energy production capacity.

According to the IEA, between 2010 and 2015, Chinese companies that served as the main contractors contributed more than seven gigawatts of new power additions, representing 30 percent of sub-Saharan Africa's total electricity capacity additions. Within the five years, completed Chinese power plants accounted for 46 percent of the region's entire power additions if South Africa is excluded. From 2010 to 2020, the power generation capacity of Chinese-built power plants amounted to 17 gigawatts, equivalent to 10 percent of the region's existing capacity. Between 2010 and 2020, Chinese contractors have added at least 28,000 kilometers of electricity lines, ranging from the entire power grid chain to cross border transmission lines, connecting to urban and rural distribution networks.

Within the 10-year duration, the contribution of Chinese companies in developing energy infrastructure is greater than any other foreign country. Chinese companies were contracted in at least 37 out of 54 African countries within the decade. The countries without a Chinese presence account for less than 5 percent of sub-Saharan Africa's total energy output.

All these outstanding contributions signify that the surest pathway for governments in Africa to achieve universal energy access is to strengthen their partnership with China in a collective effort, focusing on raising investment to modernize the continent's energy infrastructure. However, this may not be all that is required to meet the rising energy demand, especially in the long term.

While it is critical to build a reliable and sustainable energy system with efficient transmission and distribution networks that connect urban and rural areas, it is equally important to implement effective policies and regulations that will strengthen the management capacity of power generating companies and other relevant organizations in the energy market. Together with punitive measures, these policies will ensure that companies in the energy sector generate enough revenue to facilitate targeted investment and undertake frequent maintenance that will significantly reduce power outages, which will improve access to energy in Africa.

In short, universal energy access is achievable in Africa only when appropriate regulations and evidence-based policies for power generating companies and relevant stakeholders in the region's energy industry are effectively implemented together with accompanying strategic investment to scale-up energy generation capacity on the continent.

 

Expert explores how our sleeping patterns can be linked to cognitive decline

• Download PDF Copy

Nov 15 2021Reviewed by Danielle Ellis, B.Sc.

Dr Greg Elder, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Associate Director of Northumbria Sleep Research explores why a good night's sleep is important and how our sleeping patterns can be linked to conditions like dementia for The Conversation.

Does too much sleep really increase your risk of cognitive decline?. Image Credit: Northumbria University

A good night’s sleep is important for many reasons. It helps our body repair itself and function as it should, and is linked to better mental health and lower risk of many health conditions – including heart disease and diabetes. It’s also been shown that not getting enough sleep is linked to cognitive decline and conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease.

But more isn’t always better, as one recent study found. Researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine have published a paper that indicates that just like getting too little sleep, sleeping too much may also be linked with cognitive decline.

The research team wanted to know how much sleep was linked to cognitive impairment over time. To do this, they looked at 100 older adults in their mid-to-late-70s on average, and tracked them for between four and five years. At the time of their study, 88 people did not show any signs of dementia, while 12 showed signs of cognitive impairment (one with mild dementia and 11 with the pre-dementia stage of mild cognitive impairment).

Throughout the study, participants were asked to complete a range of commonplace cognitive and neuropsychological tests to look for signs of cognitive decline or dementia. Their scores from these tests were then combined into a single score, called the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score. The higher the score, the better their cognition was over time.

Sleep was measured using a single-electrode encephalography (EEG) device, which participants wore on their forehead while sleeping, for a total of between four to six nights. This was done once, three years after people first completed their annual cognitive tests. This EEG allowed the researchers to accurately measure brain activity, which would tell them whether or not someone was asleep (and for how long), and how restful that sleep was.

Although sleep was only measured at one period during the study, this still gave the research team a good indication of participants’ normal sleep habits. While using an EEG to measure brain activity may be somewhat disruptive to sleep on the first night, as people get used to the equipment, sleep tends to return to normal the following night. This means that when sleep is tracked from the second night onwards it’s a good representation of a person’s normal sleep habits.

The researchers also took into account other factors that can affect cognitive decline – including age, genetics and whether a person had signs of the proteins beta-amyloid or tau, which are both linked to dementia.

Overall, the researchers found that sleeping less than 4.5 hours and more than 6.5 hours a night – alongside poor quality sleep – was associated with cognitive decline over time. Interestingly, the impact of sleep duration on cognitive function was similar to the effect of age, which is the greatest risk factor for developing cognitive decline.

A good night's sleep

Related Stories

• Research on SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections shows the danger posed by Delta
• Bariatric surgery lowers risk of liver disease, heart complications in patients with fatty liver disease
• Research shows link between exercise and better mental health

We know from previous research that lack of sleep is linked to cognitive decline. For example, one study showed that people who reported sleep disturbances, such as insomnia or excessive daytime sleepiness, have a greater risk of developing dementia compared to people who don’t. Other research has shown that people who have short sleeping times have higher levels of beta-amyloid in their brain – which is commonly found in the brains of people who have Alzheimer’s disease.

Researchers don’t know for certain why lack of sleep is linked to cognitive decline. One theory is that sleep helps our brain flush out harmful proteins that build up during the day. Some of these proteins – like beta-amyloid and tau – are thought to cause dementia. So interfering with sleep might interfere with our brain’s ability to get rid of these. Experimental evidence even supports this – showing that even just one night of sleep deprivation temporarily increases beta-amyloid levels in the brain of healthy people.

But it’s less clear why long sleep is linked with cognitive decline. Previous studies have also found a link between over-sleep and cognitive performance, but most relied upon participants self-reporting how long they sleep nightly – which means the data is less accurate than using an EEG to measure brain activity. This new study therefore adds weight to such findings.

What’s surprising about this study’s findings is that the optimal sleep duration is much shorter than that which previous studies have suggested are problematic. The study showed that sleeping longer than 6.5 hours was associated with cognitive decline over time – this is low when we consider that older adults are recommended to get between seven and eight hours of sleep every night.

It could be the case that it isn’t necessarily the length of the sleep that matters, but the quality of that sleep when it comes to risk of developing dementia. For instance, this study also showed that having less “slow-wave” sleep – restorative sleep – particularly affected cognitive impairment.

What we also cannot tell from this study is if long sleep durations can independently predict cognitive decline. Essentially, we can’t rule out that participants who slept longer than 6.5 hours every night might not have already had pre-existing cognitive problems of brain changes suggestive of dementia that weren’t picked up on the tests. And although the researchers were careful to adjust for dementia-related factors, longer sleepers may also have had other pre-existing conditions that might have contributed to their cognitive decline which weren’t taken into account. For example, this could include poor health, socioeconomic status or physical activity levels. All of these factors together may explain why longer sleep was linked to cognitive decline.

There are many factors which can impact on both our sleep quality, and whether we experience cognitive decline. While some factors aren’t preventable (such as genetic predisposition), there are many things we can do alongside getting a good night’s sleep to help reduce our likelihood of developing dementia – such as exercising and eating a healthy diet. But while the researchers of this study seem to suggest there’s an optimal sleep duration – between 4.5 and 6.5 hours every night – the occasional weekend lie-in is unlikely to do your brain any harm.

Source:

Northumbria University

Journal reference:

Lucey, B.P., et al. (2021) Sleep and longitudinal cognitive performance in preclinical and early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Brain. doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab272.

The FBI’s email system was hacked to send out fake cybersecurity warnings

A flaw in the FBI’s website allowed hackers to use the FBI’s legitimate email address

By Emma Roth Nov 14, 2021


Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Hackers targeted the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) email servers, sending out thousands of phony messages that say its recipients have become the victims of a “sophisticated chain attack,” first reported by Bleeping Computer. The emails were initially uncovered by The Spamhaus Project, a nonprofit organization that investigates email spammers.

The emails claim that Vinny Troia was behind the fake attacks and also falsely state that Troia is associated with the infamous hacking group, The Dark Overlord — the same bad actors who leaked the fifth season of Orange Is the New Black. In reality, Troia is a prominent cybersecurity researcher who runs two dark web security companies, NightLion and Shadowbyte.

As noted by Bleeping Computer, the hackers managed to send out emails to over 100,000 addresses, all of which were scraped from the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) database. A report by Bloomberg says that hackers used the FBI’s public-facing email system, making the emails seem all the more legitimate. Cybersecurity researcher Kevin Beaumont also attests to the email’s legitimate appearance, stating that the headers are authenticated as coming from FBI servers using the Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) process that’s part of the system Gmail uses to stick brand logos on verified corporate emails.

The FBI responded to the incident in a press release, noting that it’s an “ongoing situation” and that “the impacted hardware was taken offline.” Aside from that, the FBI says it doesn’t have any more information it can share at this time.

According to Bleeping Computer, the spam campaign was likely carried out as an attempt to defame Troia. In a tweet, Troia speculates that an individual who goes by the name “Pompompurin” may have launched the attack. As Bleeping Computer notes, that same person has allegedly tried damaging Troia’s reputation in similar ways in the past.

A report by computer security reporter Brian Krebs also connects Pompompurin to the incident — the individual allegedly messaged him from an FBI email address when the attacks were launched, stating, “Hi its pompompurin. Check headers of this email it’s actually coming from FBI server.” KrebsOnSecurity even got a chance to speak with Pompompurin, who claims that the hack was meant to highlight the security vulnerabilities within the FBI’s email systems.

“I could’ve 1000 percent used this to send more legit looking emails, trick companies into handing over data etc.,” Pompompurin said in a statement to KrebsOnSecurity. The individual also told the outlet that they exploited a security gap on the FBI’s Law Enforcement Enterprise (LEEP) portal and managed to sign up for an account using a one-time password embedded in the page’s HTML. From there, Pompompurin claims they were able to manipulate the sender’s address and email body, executing the massive spam campaign.

With that kind of access, the attack could’ve been much worse than a false alert that put system administrators on high alert. Earlier this month, President Joe Biden mandated a bug fix that calls for civilian federal agencies to patch any known threats. In May, Biden signed an executive order that aims to improve the nation’s cyber defenses in the wake of detrimental attacks on the Colonial Pipeline and SolarWinds.

Three snow leopards at Nebraska zoo die from COVID-19 infection

Two Sumatran tigers contracted the virus but recovered

Three snow leopards in a Nebraska zoo have died from complications due to COVID-19.

The Lincoln Children’s Zoo also announced that two Sumatran tigers, Axl and Kumar, contracted the virus but have recovered.

(iStock)

"Our leopards, Ranney, Everest, and Makalu, were beloved by our entire community inside and outside of the zoo," a statement from the zoo read. "This loss is truly heartbreaking, and we are all grieving together."