The angry desperation in countries most vulnerable to climate change following the final Cop26 agreement in Glasgow is tragically well founded in their experience of international failure to deal with this crisis to date. "You might as well bomb us," one Pacific islands leader said bluntly.
Conversely, the hubris of the countries who systematically unpicked the strongest clauses in the agreement’s early drafts lacks any experiential, scientific – or ethical – rationale .
There were certainly chronic flaws in the Cop26 process. There were 500 fossil fuel lobbyists present, when many suffering the lethal consequences of their industries were excluded. Would we countenance a global conference on lung cancer with a similar lobby from the tobacco industry?
The final declaration was blatantly redacted by massive fossil fuel polluters. An initial intention to “phase out” coal power, and the current massive subsidies for fossil fuel production, was neutered to a ‘phasing down’ of coal power, and “accelerating efforts” on the phasing out of “inefficient” subsidies.
This wording implies that coal power will be maintained well into the future, and that it is somehow possible to “efficiently” subsidise industries that are bringing us ever faster towards catastrophic levels of global heating.
Nevertheless, optimists can point to some wins at the Glasgow conference, just enough to keep hope alive that the international community may yet make an effective commitment to mitigating, if not reversing, the crisis. Those wins included the surprise US-China agreement to co-operate on this issue; heightened commitments to deforestation; global endorsement of the EU-US agreement to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030.
Ireland can take some comfort in Climate Action Minister Eamon Ryan’s imaginative move to revive stalled plans to create an effective “loss and damage” fund for poor countries. He also argues that this Cop gives “legal certainties” to implementing the 2015 Paris Cop deal.
For climate Cop veterans, the mere mention of fossil fuels in the declaration for the first time is a significant advance. But this is also an indication of just how successfully world leaders have avoided heeding the science in the IPCC reports up to now. The fact that all parties to the agreement are being asked to increase their commitments at the Cop in Egypt next year is just enough to sustain a belief that we could yet keep temperature rises within the (barely) safe limit of 1.5 degrees.
Perhaps the best hope now is that public opinion has shifted massively on this question in many countries. If our children are to enjoy a habitable world, politicians across the globe must respond by making greater advances, much faster.