The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
Get our free newsletter
Sign Up
Science + Tech

Unpacking What Was Decided at COP26

Feeling overwhelmed by all the news from Glasgow? Here’s a quick overview, tapping experts.

Various contributors 15 Nov 2021 | The Conversation

[Editor’s note: The Conversation, a site where academics publish popular versions of their work, 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. The original story, found here , will be updated as reactions come in]

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 degrees.” 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 degrees 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 U.K. government used its presidency program 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 decarbonization 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 and director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds

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 C 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 per cent 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

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 recognized 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 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

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 U.S., 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 or EVs reached 20 per cent 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 per cent 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 per cent drop in battery costs since the Paris accord.

Aviation is tougher because electrification is currently only possible for short flights and smaller planes. The U.S., U.K. 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

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 per cent 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 nationally determined contributions, or 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 per cent 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 decarbonizing 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

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 C. Renewable energy, currently 13 per cent of the global energy system, needs to reach 80 per cent 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

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 U.K., Germany, Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates formed an initiative for developing low carbon steel and concrete, to decarbonize 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 per cent 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 health care 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, the U.S. 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

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, its supreme decision-making body — the Conference of the Parties, or 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 emphasized 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 U.K. announced the allocation of £165 million to foster gender equality in climate change action, Bolivia pledged to reflect gender data in its NDCs and Canada pledged that 80 per cent of its climate investments over the next five years will target gender equality outcomes.

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 NDCs 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, research fellow at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and the University of Wageningen

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 U.K. government as host and therefore president of COP26 wanted to “keep 1.5 degrees 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 per cent 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 LondonThe Conversation  [Tyee]

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion.
*Please note The Tyee is not a forum for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, denying its existence or minimizing its risk to public health.


  • Be thoughtful about how your words may affect the communities you are addressing. Language matters
  • Challenge arguments, not commenters
  • Flag trolls and guideline violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity, learn from differences of opinion
  • Verify facts, debunk rumours, point out logical fallacies
  • Add context and background
  • Note typos and reporting blind spots
  • Stay on topic

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language
  • Ridicule, misgender, bully, threaten, name call, troll or wish harm on others
  • Personally attack authors or contributors
  • Spread misinformation or perpetuate conspiracies
  • Libel, defame or publish falsehoods
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities
  • Post links without providing context


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: Are You Preparing for the Next Climate Disaster?

Take this week's poll