Report on the COP26: Maker of Meaningful Frames or Inherently Meaningless? by

Ruta Geneves with the help of Anton Kuntze and Hanna Hudak

Earlier this month, in the afternoon of November 13th, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) had its closing plenary session, after 14 days of relatively controversial exchanges and talks regarding climate agreements. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, this 26th meeting took place under special circumstances that had never been seen since its first edition in 1995. However, the assessments remain the same. Although creating a general path towards climate action among all UN members at first, in the last few years the lack of tangible results has been criticized time and time again by environmentalists, thus posing the question of whether such conferences are truly makers of meaningful frames – which urge nations around the world to act against climate change – or whether they represent nothing but blabbering among world leaders incapable of seeing eye to eye and agreeing on binding accords, therefore making COP26 and its forerunners inherently meaningless.

The European Union – often seen as one of the actors spearheading the global movement towards environmental action – has both been appraised and scrutinized for what it has done for the environment since the problem of global warming finally gained a noticeable place in the sphere of global governance. Here, we will discuss the position of a few of these member states; what they think about COP26, and what they have done prior, during, and after the conference took place.

Negative Attitudes Regarding COP26, and Other Problems as Applied to Each Country

To quote Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, needless to say that she isn’t the only one to think that “COP26 is a failure” (Meredith 2021). Just like Thunberg, French environmental activists are also highly disappointed in the outcome of the Glasgow Conference, as well as in their government’s actions, denouncing the gap between its promises and its acts. Before French president Emmanuel Macron even spoke for the first time at the Conference, already, many were not expecting anything worthwhile coming from the head of state; “Emmanuel Macron is preparing to announce that France is ready to face the climate crisis. This isn’t true. Under his government, he has done the opposite of what he has promised” (Guérineau de Lamérie 2021, par. 5) said Marie, the spokesperson of a French environmentalist group.

Although commentary on COP26 in the French media does not seem entirely negative, one could argue that even praise seems to reflect some level of cognitive dissonance considering the country’s unusual geographical layout. After Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley spoke at the Conference, her speech was acclaimed by many. French newspaper Libération even wrote an article regarding her words mentioning how she is “first to be committed to the climate” (Disdero 2021) and how the insular nation of Barbados is “[e]xtremely vulnerable due to its remoteness and lack of capital” (ibid, par. 4). However, the complete absence, in this article, of mentions of the French territories in the Caribbean seems odd when knowing that alongside the United Kingdom, France is the only country to spread over every single continent of the world excluding Asia. Not only that but the Caribbean island of Martinique is also located at a mere 230 kilometers from Barbados; a distance more than two times as short as the 550 kilometers separating Glasgow and London. Although deeper research on the position held by the French government about the environmental situation in its overseas territories, and the perceptions of its actions by natives of those regions is something that requires research beyond what is dealt with in this article; there seems to be a lack of indigenous voices in the French media regarding the preservation of these lands geographically vulnerable to global warming.

Mirroring the position of the aforementioned Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley, similar speeches regarding the position of other small and less economically advanced countries in the face of climate change were also made by leaders of smaller EU nations. One of them was Gitanas Nausėda, the president of the Baltic state of Lithuania. On the first day of the conference, he declared: “As a small state, we can do a great deal, but we alone cannot save the world. We must work hand in hand with our neighbors, with like-minded people” (BNS and lrytas.lt 2021a, par. 4), underlining the pivotal role of large and powerful nations in the fight against climate change. He also mentioned how there must be “clear commitments and mechanisms for how we [world leaders] intend to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement” (ibid, par. 1). In light of the many changes in language brought to the final draft of the Glasgow Climate Pact, this doesn’t seem to have been the case in every single article of said pact, such as – for example – the addition of the phrase “taking into account different national circumstances” to various parts of the final draft, something many appear to be wary about (Frémont and Cheyvialle 2021, par. 2).

Overall, European conservatives too seem skeptical about the aftermath of what COP26 has to offer, pointing the finger at the world’s largest polluters such as China, Russia, and India and advancing the opinion that the EU is the only one going to such an extent to protect the environment, regardless of its economic consequences. Renaud Girard, a journalist for Le Figaro, writes: “Geopolitically speaking, the EU seems to be ‘conveniently foolish’ when it comes to the fight against climate change. It imposes more efforts and restrictions on itself than others do. It destroys its landscapes with giant wind turbines. It masochistically sanctions large companies like Total, which engage growth. Although the greatest market in the world, it is incapable of strongly taxing products incoming from polluting countries” (2021, par. 7). This feeling is replicated in other countries as well, including in the conservative state of Hungary where the government seems dissatisfied with other nations not taking the climate question as seriously as they may do. Minister of Justice Judit Varga states: “the costs of tackling climate change should … be borne … by the biggest polluters and companies” (Origo 2021).

Their assessment of COP26 remains poor; “new meetings always follow last resort summits, the apocalypse is endlessly postponed”, writes Le Figaro assistant managing editor Philippe Gélie (2021, par. 2).

Positive Attitudes Regarding, and Positive Influences Owing to COP26

 

Then, what is currently being done by these more powerful actors such as the EU in the aftermath of COP26? No matter how pessimistic the outcome of this latest summit may seem, one cannot deny that there is no glimmer of hope brought on by this meeting, many argue (Coulaud 2021, par. 5-6).

This time too, the EU kept its position as an organization initiating climate action, inviting – alongside the United States – other countries to support the Global Methane Pledge (Global Methane Pledge 2021). Aside from that, individual states too are supportive of the movement, and although some have yet to pass climate protection laws such as Austria (ORF.at 2021), others are keen on passing more legislation as a result of COP26. Some even had new laws and declarations carried out prior to the Conference, which could arguably have been done in preparation for this event. The most obvious example of this is the one of Hungary and its National Clean Development Strategy approved in September, which legislates the goal of making the country achieve full climate neutrality by 2050 (Portfolio 2021), a first in the EU (Hungarian Insider 2021, par. 1). Hungary also plans to make all city buses electric by 2030 (Barnóczki 2021), another concrete commitment for the country where environmentalism seems to play a critical role in both its society and politics. France too has been working on a new law called the Climate and Resilience Law which was approved in August. This is a law comprising multiple goals, one of them being the implementation of a “green score” attributed to various goods and services. This new score plans on calculating the environmental impact of a product from its production to destruction (or recycling) and thus allow consumers to make more informed choices regarding what they buy (Chayet 2021). Lithuania too declared the “Green Lithuania Declaration” in May, supporting the creation of a climate-neutral economy by 2050 (Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidentas 2021). Although Lithuanian president G. Nausėda signed the declaration, he stated that it should also be supported by legislation “examined through … the environmental standards lens” (BNS and lrytas.lt 2021b, par. 11), once again emphasizing the main idea pushed by environmentalists after the Conference; empty promises are meaningless when dealing with climate protection, and action is the only way to go.

So, what are some of these many promised actions that have been or will be undertaken by EU states? As European Commissioner for the Environment Virginijus Sinkevičius said, “[c]lean air and clean water cannot be a luxury.” Besides, it should not be one only rich countries can afford (ibid, par. 6-7). This is also a claim supported by French president E. Macron, whose country has a long history of colonialism in Africa – one of the main sufferers of climate change today. In his first speech given in Glasgow, the president mentioned that “the poorest countries experience the immediate consequences of the [climate] crisis” (Le Figaro 2021), which was then in turn supported by concrete statements such as his support for the Great Green Wall initiative in the Sahel. This gargantuan project has the goal to prevent the spread of the Sahara Desert into the Sahel region, a project to which France committed an investment of 600 million EUR over the next five years (Frémont 2021, par. 9). Another European powerhouse, Germany, is also committing to help less developed countries by providing 150 million EUR “to help poorer countries adapt to the consequences of climate change” (Weiss 2021, par. 27), something announced by the Federal Ministry of the Environment on the eighth day of the Conference.

United Nations Climate Change Conferences have never been a walk in the park since the day they began on March 28th, 1995. The nature itself of such a meeting, where heads of state, heads of government, and other major world politicians meet to discuss matters on which they should all unanimously agree on – as they pertain to every individual on the planet and cannot be conducted unilaterally – is simply utopian. Nevertheless, the absence of a world-governing body legally binding nation-states does not mean such discussions are meaningless. As being the element, which differentiates us from other forms of life, communication is a powerful tool whose strength cannot be denied, especially in the realm of diplomacy. The outcome of COP26 may be disappointing to some, but we should also consider that without meetings like these, current circumstances might much worse than we could ever imagine.