Last November, I travelled to Glasgow for my first ever COP. Like most others, I had read a lot about it on the news and listened to many podcasts about the likely outcomes. All this talk had made me feel hopeful, with even Boris Johnson claiming that COP26 would represent a ‘turning point for humanity’. However, most experts were more moderate in their expectations, and their sober thoughts soon made me realise the unlikelihood of significant changes resulting from this conference.
The conference also drew criticism around exclusivity; the fact that lobbyists for big polluters represented the largest delegation says it all. Climate change is a global crisis that affects everyone and the proposed changes will too, so the exclusionary nature of the conference is a big issue. Appropriate representation at these climate summits is key to bringing in the perspectives of those who are at the frontline of climate change.
The need to represent all voices
COP26 was deemed to be the ‘most exclusionary’ and ‘whitest and most privileged ever’ climate summit ever. This was highlighted on the streets across Glasgow, where large protests took place.
Indigenous Peoples did represent the second-largest civil society delegation in attendance at this year’s COP – but still second to the oil and gas lobbyists. The worst impacts of climate change fall on those who are likely to be least represented at COPs, and therefore, active efforts should be made to represent all groups appropriately and to give a voice to the voiceless.
There was also a clear split between the Global North and Global South. Most countries from the Global South kept reiterating the need for more support and the empty promises from the Global North, while these countries, in turn, highlighted the need for more ambition with a seeming disconnect between words and actions, and between what was shared publicly and what was happening behind closed doors.
Addressing accessibility
Although I did not have other COPs to compare it to, each person I talked to who had been to COPs before emphasised how poorly organised it was. In terms of accessibility, for example, an Israeli minister said that she could not attend because it was not wheelchair accessible. There was also an apparent failure to provide British Sign Language interpreters and captions for COP26 broadcasts.
Throughout the event, it became obvious that there were not enough places to sit, whether to have lunch, to rest, or to check on work emails (including insufficient sockets). Admittedly, COVID-19 considerations must have complicated the organisation of the conference, but this provides an insufficient argument for its shortcomings.
The outcome of COP26
What I found interesting – and disappointing – is that the issues that were clear to be potential obstacles at the outset continued to be so until the very end: climate finance, adaptation, and loss and damage.
Negotiations are often about compromise, and the political encounters at COP26 were expected to be no different. Still, there was a feeling of hope that nations were finally waking up to the urgency of the issue and that this COP would be a real change-maker. Regrettably, however, compromise once again stood in the way of making a real difference. The final outcome did make some landmark achievements, for example, it being the first-ever COP decision that mentions reducing fossil fuels. However, the watered-down language and reliance on next year’s increased ambitions mean that the pressure is on for COP27 to drive the required changes. Unfortunately, climate change is not an issue where time is on our side.
In many cases, the ones driving real change, right now, are the ones who are fighting on the ground and who are at the frontline of climate change. They are doing it one march, one project, one discussion at a time. It will be important for future climate summits to catch up to these real ‘turning points’ and realise there is a lot to be gained from being more inclusive.