Valerie Volcovici and Kate Abnett

GLASGOW (Reuters). It was clear that U.N.’s climate summit had the goal of achieving a deal which would give the world a chance at avoiding the worst effects of climate changes by limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.77 Fahrenheit) higher than pre-industrial levels.

The accord met that bar, but barely, and its ultimate success will be determined by the future actions of the governments that thrashed it out, according to the summit’s UK hosts, participants, and observers.

“I feel that today, 1.5 is within reach. But its pulse is weak, and we will only survive if we keep our promises,” the summit’s president Alok Sharma said late on Saturday after the pact was adopted.

The agreement, which was supported by almost 200 countries, explicitly targeted fossil fuels. This is the most significant driver of man-made global warming.

The agreement also included voluntary commitments by countries, investors, and companies to reduce emissions from planes and cars, curtail the strong greenhouse gas methane and protect forests, and boost green finance.

But the agreement was packed with compromises, leaving all sides – from wealthy nations seeking faster action, to resource-rich developing countries and low-lying island states – dissatisfied.

Antonio Guterres (U.N. SecretaryGeneral) stated that “the approved texts are a compromise.” They “reflect the present world’s interests, conditions and political will.

This leaves the world extremely vulnerable.

We are still trying to stop climate disaster. He stated that it was time for emergency mode to be activated.

AMBITION

It did not provide enough pledges to reduce emissions from the countries participating in the summit to establish a path for limiting global warming to 1.5C. It reached a deal with the 200+ countries that were represented at the summit to raise their emissions-cutting pledges for next year in order to close the gap.

This gap is enormous. The current government pledges to lower emissions for the next 10 years would result in 2.4C warming.

In order to align with the 1.5C targets, all countries must cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030. This is a reduction of 45% from 2010. According to current promises, carbon dioxide emissions will rise by almost 14% between 2010 and 2030.

Bert Wander, acting CEO at Avaaz, stated that while compromises made by COP26 kept the 1.5C target in reach, “it is hanging by a thread.”

China, the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitter, announced in a joint declaration with the United States last week that it would accelerate efforts to reduce emissions by curbing coal use, tackling methane, and preserving forests. The declaration provided little information.

China was another resource-rich country that softened the language of the Glasgow agreement to include fossil fuels.

Draft calls on all countries to end coal-related subsidies. Through negotiations, however, it was decided that coal would be “unabated coal” and there could still be use of emissions-capturing technology.

Subsidies were deemed “inefficient subsidies” without any definition. This allowed governments to keep funding coal, oil and gas while allowing them some flexibility.

India and China intervened last minute to change the coal phase out from a “phase up” just prior to the agreement being adopted.

FAIRNESS

Glasgow Agreement delivered mixed results on finance. This is a contentious topic between rich countries and their powerful and wealthy counterparts.

Finance comes down to fairness. Will rich countries whose historic emissions contribute to climate change pay the cost?

This agreement made some progress. The deal required developed countries to provide climate finance to adapt to the developing nation Parties at least twice their current levels of 2019 by 2025.

The agreement also included for the first-time mention of loss and damage in its cover section. The term “loss and damage” refers to all the financial losses that countries already face due to climate-driven catastrophes. These countries have sought for compensation for many years.

The agreement was resisted by the United States, European Union and other rich countries, but it failed to obtain funds for compensation.

The deal was overwhelmingly supported by some of the most fragile countries in the world. Lia Nicholson, Antigua and Barbuda negotiator, said that her country and the other smaller island states present at talks would “express our grievances in due time.”

The 2009 climate finance promise of $100 billion each year by 2020 from rich nations was broken. This has made poorer countries suspicious that the promised money will never arrive. Now they expect to deliver $100 billion by 2023.