In Glasgow, To this The bilateral alliance issued some important statements: on coal issues; providing funds for overseas oil and gas activities; and on Thursday 11th, phasing out natural gas and oil.
These announcements are not part of the UN framework: their sponsors are using COP as an opportunity to launch these initiatives, but are careful not to formally submit them to the UN. These are bilateral announcements and there are no restrictions of any kind.
Although it is an important step forward, bilateral commitments have major limitations.
The announcement on coal only concerns coal that has not been reduced in production. The financing announcement is only for overseas activities-the United States and Canada can support them as a way to maintain the “competitive advantage” of their domestic extractive industries). The “Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance” alliance led by Denmark and Costa Rica is non-binding and only focuses on permits, not permits.
Therefore, it is crucial to reintegrate energy issues into the UNFCCC framework: otherwise, the multilateral framework will face the risk of explosion and irrevocably remove any form of restrictions.
Redistribute
So, what was the stake in the last 48 hours of negotiations?
Obviously, the first thing is to ensure that the text does not change at this point. However, there is concern that the fossil fuel lobby will go to great lengths to delete this paragraph.
The second challenge is to make these initiatives and statements “accountable” to the Conference of the Parties, civil society and citizens.
The spread of To this The alliance will continue to weaken the UNFCCC and COP, and they can ultimately only be used to discuss technological models that mainly involve poor or emerging countries.
These announcements also had a direct impact on the COP and the talks held there: they redistributed legitimacy and influence among countries.
decisive
At the very least, if these announcements are to have the legitimacy of the COP, they should include a commitment to report to the General Assembly and accountability.
Most importantly: these announcements are 20 years late.
From this perspective, the mention of fossil fuels in the Glasgow Agreement will strengthen the legitimacy of many actions organized by the Climate Justice Movement to stop fossil infrastructure and stop the expansion of fossil fuels until these actions become state-led policies.
Even counterintuitively, the increase in bilateral agreements is a direct result of the leadership of the climate justice movement, which has prompted countries to mention climate action in almost every negotiation, institution, and bilateral meeting.
All in all, these commitments allow us to increase the pressure on governments: if a country has repeatedly pledged to take climate action on various bilateral alliances, then they can better translate these commitments into their nationally determined contributions.
After a delay of 20 years, fossil fuels may eventually enter the COP process. Leaving them underground may be decisive.
These authors
Amélie Canonne is a lawyer specializing in international law, a member of Attack, and an expert in trade and climate policy. Maxime Combes is an economist who specializes in trade agreements and climate policy.Nicolas Haeringer is 350.org.
