[Epoch Times, November 18, 2021](Reporter Ning Bai comprehensive report) The two-week United Nations climate summit COP26, despite some people’s disappointment, passed the final agreement on November 14, the “Glasgow Climate Convention”. The curtain falls in Glasgow, Scotland.
COP26 is considered the most important climate summit since the Paris Agreement in 2015, when countries reached a landmark agreement to try to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The purpose of this summit is to test and evaluate the implementation of the “emission reduction targets” promised by the contracting parties since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. It is led by the United Nations to coordinate global actions for the next 10 years and clarify new carbon emission targets.
The United Nations issued a seven-page document during the summit, urging countries attending the Glasgow summit to re-examine and strengthen their 2030 emissions targets before next year. It also called for the complete elimination of coal.
The so-called emission reduction target proposed by the United Nations is based on the so-called “scientists’ warning”: It is important to ensure that the earth’s temperature rise is controlled within 1.5ºC. Beyond this limit, the serious impact of climate change will not be controlled. Therefore, it needs to be in 2030. Reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 45% to zero overall by 2050. Unfortunately, because the world has deviated from the track of achieving the 2030 emission reduction target, the draft document urges all countries to “re-examine and strengthen” their emission reduction targets up to 2030 in their national plans.
Despite the promise made at COP26, the world is still expected to reach a level 2.4ºC higher than the pre-industrial level. This refers to the ideal situation in which all countries at this summit fully fulfill their pledged emission reduction targets. Obviously, there is still a lot of gap between the 1.5ºC control target originally hoped by the United Nations. At the same time, let alone that the emission reduction targets allocated to developing and poor countries are difficult to achieve, even developed countries may not be able to guarantee the smooth implementation and completion of their quotas. In fact, the key to the achievement of emission reduction targets depends on the implementation of emission reductions of major carbon emitters (China, India, Russia, etc.).
James Shaw, the climate change minister and co-leader of the Green Party, who represented the New Zealand government to the summit in Glasgow, said that attending the Glasgow meeting was “tragic and embarrassing” with New Zealand’s poor carbon emissions record.
Shaw urged that COP26 is over and it is time to move from talking about solving the global climate emergency to action. Countries need to turn their attention to the necessary economic decarbonization actions. But Shaw pointed out that the UN’s stricter decarbonization target does not apply to New Zealand.
New Zealand government’s position
Climate Change Minister Shaw believes that the UN document aims to encourage countries to revise their targets, “but this does not mean you have to do this. Some countries, including larger emitters, have not increased their commitments, so (in the document Language) is more like targeting these countries.” This is the interpretation of the UN documents by the Minister.
Although New Zealand’s 41% reduction target has been widely criticized for being too low, Shaw insisted that the Cabinet has listened to government officials and they suggested setting a higher target that cannot be achieved under the current circumstances. He added: “The cabinet’s position is that we think this is as credible as we currently believe. If we want to improve our goals… at this stage, there is no reliable option.” So, Shaw Said that he did not violate the consensus reached with the cabinet earlier and used his ministerial authorization to sign higher goals because of the criticism.
Shaw believes that, in contrast to the requirements of the COP26 agreement, “our government has made some progress on many key issues agreed by the Conference of the Parties. We have strengthened our global emission reduction targets, committed to phasing out coal, and supported the country’s impact on climate change. The regions most severely affected by the change actions achieve reasonable transformation. The new emission reduction targets announced by the Prime Minister and I on the eve of COP26 will ensure that New Zealand’s climate pollution response in 2030 will be half of what it is today. This brings us closer to what scientists say The requirement to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Therefore, the government is prepared to take the following actions this year with regard to its emission reduction commitments:
Become the first country in the world to pass legislation requiring all listed companies and large financial institutions to report their climate-related risks
Upgrade schools, hospitals, universities and businesses to encourage the use of clean energy instead of dirty coal
Nearly 600 new electric vehicles were introduced into the public sector fleet
Make it easier for families to buy low-emission vehicles through clean car discounts
For the first time in New Zealand history, new imported vehicle emission standards have been introduced
Reinstatement of the authorization to include biofuels in the gasoline we will still use in cars in the next few years
Introduce a new investment framework, and all investments by government financial institutions will be carbon neutral by 2050
Change the rules to ensure that Kiwisaver Default Funds is divested from fossil fuels
Committed to introducing green bonds and recovering revenue from emissions trading programs to help fund the low-carbon transition
New Zealand Green Investment Finance quadruples the capital available to invest in future low-carbon technologies
However, what is surprising is that, instead of being recognized, New Zealand’s efforts to reduce emissions have received fierce criticism from an international climate activist group. The Climate Action Network even awarded New Zealand the Fossil of the Day Award). The network stated that James Shaw’s comments are not mandatory, and that they are hypocrisy from a country that claims to have a strong green certificate. New Zealand’s own commitments were not ambitious at the last minute, and it relied on other countries to purchase emission reduction credits to meet the standards, rather than actively reducing emissions domestically.
How do climate elites fool us
The global elites suddenly appeared an unprecedented “urgency” mood. They not only preached the “climate end” in all directions, but also launched aggressive emission reduction plans regardless of the new crown epidemic.
The question is, do these elites really believe in climate change? Can the “green energy” they promote really solve environmental problems? Why do they urgently promote “green energy”?
The term “climate change” was first proposed by former US President George W. Bush in February 2002, replacing “global warming”, which also caused dissatisfaction with environmentalists at that time.
In 2006, former US Vice President Al Gore (Al Gore) participated in the production and starring of a documentary “The Inconvenient Truth” (The Inconvenient Truth), declaring that the earth has been severely overheated. The documentary subsequently won an Oscar, and Gore himself won the Nobel Peace Prize the following year. With these auras, more and more people have become believers in the theory of global warming.
In August of this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the sixth climate change assessment report, claiming that the global warming situation has deteriorated, and the upper limit of the temperature rise of 1.5ºC set by the leaders of various countries in 2015 is likely to be in 2030. It was broken, 10 years earlier than predicted 3 years ago. Subsequently, politicians and the media followed up, saying that “climate hell” was coming, and there was only the last chance to save the planet.
In fact, in recent years, the “artificial climate warming theory” has been constantly questioned as a false proposition, because there are many reasons for climate change, involving many fields. At present, there is no scientific data to prove that carbon dioxide has caused the earth to warm up, and humans emit about 6.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, while the naturally produced carbon dioxide has reached 130 billion tons, which is 20 times that of humans. It can be seen that the human influence on temperature is actually very limited.
The lives of elite politicians are neither “green” nor “environmentally friendly”. For example, the former U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s mansion in Nashville, Tennessee, has an area of about 10,000 square feet, with 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms. Energy consumption records show that his family’s average monthly electricity bill in 2006 was as high as US$1,200. The average local American family’s electricity bill for a year is still more.
These so-called “environmentalists” travel and participate in activities on private jets and luxury yachts with high emissions. This is no longer news. The same is true for the political and business celebrities attending COP26 this time.
However, can the “green energy” they advocate really reduce environmental pollution? The documentary “Planet of the Humans” reveals that renewable energy cannot reduce environmental pollution and that the environmental protection industry is just a “green scam.”
The film explains the limited role of “green energy”. A solar panel covering the playground can only generate electricity for 10 families a year. The process of manufacturing wind power equipment and solar panels is extremely environmentally friendly. When manufacturing solar panel glass, manufacturers need to mine a large amount of expensive quartz, and then smelt the quartz and coal into silicon, which consumes a lot of coal as fuel. It also emits highly toxic silicon tetrachloride, which is more harmful to the environment than fossil fuels. While building large-scale wind and solar power stations, it is also necessary to change the use of the land and build civil engineering, which also severely damages the natural environment. Behind the renewable energy power station, a large amount of fossil fuel is still needed to support it. Wind energy and solar energy are too restricted by weather factors and require thermal power plants as backups. Once the “green energy” is not available due to weather, the thermal power plants must be activated. In addition, wind and solar power generation equipment has a limited lifespan. After only 10 years of maintenance, it will be eliminated and become waste, which is a disguised form of garbage, which brings great waste. Therefore, the so-called “green energy” not only causes greater pollution, but also consumes a large amount of taxpayers’ money, which is “not technologically advanced and economically unreasonable.”
The final agreement is the result of “compromise”
After two weeks of negotiations, especially 30 hours after the deadline, exhausted bureaucrats from various countries spent almost all night, negotiators and diplomats scrambling to try to finalize the agreement as soon as possible.
The participating countries of COP26 finally reached a consensus. Although the Glasgow Climate Convention is the first climate agreement that explicitly plans to reduce coal and recognizes that coal is the worst fossil fuel producing greenhouse gases, the process of reaching it is not easy.
Due to the dramatic last-minute troubles between India and the Chinese Communist Party, the chairman of the conference Alok Sharma agreed to compromise to ensure that the agreement did not abort. down) wording. But the move angered environmental protection organizations and island country representatives.
Chairman Sharma stated that he was “deeply sorry” for the way the incident developed. But he also emphasized that protecting the entire agreement is crucial.
The COP26 final agreement does include the government’s progress in a series of priority areas, including increasing implementation commitments and strengthening international cooperation to reduce carbon emissions. The Glasgow Climate Convention has reached an agreement aimed at avoiding dangerous climate change.
The key parts of the final agreement are:
Require countries to strengthen their carbon reduction commitments as needed by the end of 2022 to ensure that they are consistent with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees
A new work plan to help accelerate the achievement of climate goals.This is a major development because it means that the annual review of progress will be permanently on the agenda of the future COP
Long-awaited rules to ensure the environmental integrity of the global carbon market and the transparency of climate action reporting methods
Acknowledge the need to protect human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples when taking action to reduce emissions
An agreement to accelerate efforts to gradually reduce unabated subsidies for coal and inefficient fossil fuels – and complete this work in a way that supports work and a just transition for people affected by communities
Pledge to increase financial assistance to developing countries to help them adapt to climate impacts
Propose a deadline for increasing emissions reduction commitments and pave the way for the international carbon market (trading)
As a global people’s movement, Oxfam, which aims to work together to end poverty and injustice, is deeply dissatisfied with the COP26 final agreement. Its representative, Alex Johnston, believes that the rights of people living in low-lying countries have been traded. “The interests of the rich countries are prioritized in Glasgow, which is really disappointing.”
However, poor countries have expressed the need to raise the target to more than US$100 billion per year to meet the required reduction targets.
Cindy Baxter, a coal action network activist, said that last-minute changes have led to a reduction in coal, and the lack of action on losses and damages is speechless.
Baxter said: “When you lose something you can’t adapt to, you can’t find it. There will be loss of life, the loss of coastlines, and then the loss of islands.”
The Foreign Minister of Tuvalu, the South Pacific island country, Simon Kofe, himself found a new way. In order to make developed countries aware of the challenges faced by his country and other low-lying island countries, he specially stood in the sea and made contributions to the Glasgow Climate Summit. In the video speaking, we saw the Tuvalu flag and the United Nations flag behind him. His original intention was to use this to convey a clear message to developed countries and carbon emitters. If we continue to lose sight of the grim situation that Varu and many other island countries are facing their territories being submerged by rising sea levels, these countries will eventually follow suit. Disappeared from the earth.
Foreign Minister Kofe called on the major carbon emitters to take immediate action to effectively help poor and weak island countries such as Tuvalu to cope with the challenge of climate change. The video of his speech was recently reprinted by major mainstream media and went viral on the Internet. (Related link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBBsv0QyscE)
The effects of the growing climate crisis have already appeared in our corners of the world. New Zealand is also experiencing extreme weather, floods and prolonged droughts more and more frequently.
Many of our low-lying Pacific island neighbors are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Some people have already expected New Zealand to play a stronger regional leadership role in climate change. Their view of New Zealand as a potential safe haven and a “Pacific lifeboat” reminds us that if global warming exceeds the safe limit, climate refugees are inevitable.
Shaw stated that “New Zealand’s climate assistance to the Pacific and other low-income countries has quadrupled, reflecting New Zealand’s fair share of the US$100 billion annual aid target.” Although New Zealand’s overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is not significant , But always have the courage to assume more international obligations.
In fact, since the Paris summit, although New Zealand’s carbon emissions have not decreased but increased, the government has made some active efforts in climate action. The “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act” promulgated in 2019 requires greenhouse gas emissions (except biomethane) to reach net zero by 2050. Only a few other countries have passed legislation to guarantee government actions in terms of reducing emissions. The bill also established the Climate Change Commission, which has provided independent advice to the government on emission budgets and emission reduction plans for 2022-2025.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw said: “For many years, we have been discussing detailed rules under the Paris Agreement. Now that most of the work has been completed, countries can continue key implementation work. New Zealand will continue to lead by example and show the world meaningful. , Ambitious and sustained climate action.”
COP26 has changed from the many failures of negotiations in the previous years, and finally reached an agreement to establish an international carbon market this time. This is particularly important for New Zealand, because to achieve its emission reduction targets, New Zealand will have to purchase two-thirds of offshore emission reductions. This move is one of the reasons why New Zealand has been criticized by environmental organizations.
In the next 9 years, once the carbon emission reduction plan promised by New Zealand is implemented, it is still unknown what impact it will have on the country’s economic and social development. However, on the eve of the opening of COP26, a 27-page assessment report issued by 18 US intelligence agencies warned that climate change will exacerbate international tensions. This is the first time that an intelligence analysis of the impact of climate on national security has been proposed. A country’s search for resources may affect its relations with neighboring countries. Does this indicate that the already turbulent world will be more disturbed?
Editor in charge: Lan Ke