G20 in Naples fails to agree on climate goals
No date for saying goodbye to coal. Also failed the attempt to align all countries on the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, the 1.5°C of global warming. On the most important points, the G20 Climate Summit in “bella Napoli” flopped. To the point that the final communiqué is incomplete.
Credits to GWPF
The G20 meeting was seen as a decisive step ahead of international climate talks, known as COP 26, to be held in Glasgow in November. “Failure to agree a G20 climate communiqué would be a stark warning for COP26,” said Tom Evans, a researcher at think tank E3G in London. The accord issued by the 20 largest economies in the world simply postpones to Glasgow the thorniest point of the discussion: the agreement on decarbonization targets. "The G20 accounts for 80% of all global emissions," reminded UNFCCC Secretary General Patricia Espinosa. “There is no pathway to 1.5°C without the G20.”
The points of the Naples agreement
Without any real binding commitments, the agreement focuses primarily on four points:
1. Mitigation of climate change and adaptation to its effects
It reconfirms what was established in 2015 at the Paris COP, postponing the discussion to COP26 in Glasgow. It reiterates the need to increase aid to developing countries, which are the most affected by the effects of the climate crisis. Therefore, the role of the USD 100 billion financial commitment provided for by the Paris Agreement remains central.
2. Acceleration of energy transition
The need to continue to invest in renewable technologies and reduce the use of methane is stressed. The G20 look with interest at the key role of new technologies and energy sources such as offshore renewables, ocean energy and hydrogen.
3. Alignment of financial flows with the Paris objectives
“While recognizing the need to continue to prioritize efforts to address Covid-19, [the G20] commit to allocate an ambitious share of funds for national recovery and resilience plans to climate change mitigation and adaptation”. These funds refer to an accord signed in 2009. Developed nations should jointly contribute USD 100 billion each year by 2020 in climate finance to poorer countries. That target has yet to be met. Nonetheless, Roberto Cingolani, the Italian Minister for Ecological Transition, said the pledge “remains central”. Also, there was “a commitment to increase contributions every year until 2025”.
4. Resilience of cities and urban areas
On the one side, cities are recognized as some of the most vulnerable places to climate impacts. On the other, they are seen as strategic points for mitigation and adaptation processes. The actions and smart infrastructures of cities are and will be increasingly crucial in many respects. For example, in the transition to a more sustainable mobility, the application of circular economy, adaptation to extreme weather, and energy efficiency.
What the G20 Climate (didn't) decide
The final communiqué no longer has 60 articles, but only 58. The two missing - precisely those on combating climate change - are removed. Otherwise, not all countries would have signed the final document. Therefore, the commitment on global warming remains vague. Cingolani told the press the exact formulation of the accord: “definitely under 2°C, as in the Paris agreement”.
The Italian presidency failed to obtain a common commitment on keeping global warming to 1.5°C, the most ambitious goal of Paris. Nothing to do either for the acceleration of the Paris target, that is to align to the the 1.5°C threshold by 2030 - or at least, by this date “do the bulk of the work”. A path that will probably be indicated by the new IPCC report to be published between August and March.
The other article removed concerns coal. The G20 Climate in Naples has not found an agreement on the date of the phase out of the most polluting fossil fuel. To row against, were mainly China, India and Russia. The Italian sherpas have tried a mediation, focusing on the stop of incentives instead of their final date. Yet, another hole in the water.
Still, Cingolani tried to make his very own injection of optimism: "Four months ago these countries did not even want to hear about these issues. Now everyone accepts that the phase out of fossil fuels is necessary even if there are disagreements about the timing". But here's the point: the quality of climate agreements is no longer a matter of content. What matters is the timeframe in which the goals are to be reached. Fingers crossed that by the Glasgow gathering this point will be clear.
