An agreement at Cop26 in Glasgow is “possible but not certain”, Minister for the Environment Eamon Ryan has said, predicting that the summit which was due to end on Friday could run into Sunday.
“It’s very important that there’s the potential for an agreement which would help us to keep [the] 1.5-degrees [goal] alive and stop the most dangerous climate change, but we’re not there yet,” he said.
“We can’t agree a deal that doesn’t meet the science, that goes without saying. I think it’s possible but it’s not certain. It may run into tomorrow . . . there’s nothing certain yet.”
Mr Ryan was speaking as delegates from almost 200 countries discussed the latest draft of an agreement aimed at keeping alive the prospect of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.
Divisions remain over a number of issues, notably phasing out subsidies for coal and oil, and financial support for poorer countries to deal with the impact of climate change.
“One of the key issues in getting an agreement I think will be how we help developing countries, poorer countries, and I think Ireland has a role to play in that,” Mr Ryan said.
He said that Ireland and three other European Union member states on Saturday morning pledged immediate finance – €5 million in Ireland’s case – to strengthen the Santiago network that links vulnerable countries to sources of assistance and expertise.
He also offered Ireland as a location for a dialogue on how to improve support for poorer countries dealing with the impact of climate change.
“I think Ireland can help in that way and we also have a good record on humanitarian relief and helping countries manage loss and damage,” he said. “What I’m saying to my European colleagues is that we’ll provide whatever support and help so that . . . the poorest countries are protected and that we don’t ignore the science.
“You can’t negotiate with the science. So I hope that our contribution today will be to try to help get that sense into the dialogue here so that we can get an agreement.”
Carbon markets deal
Negotiators began to close in on a deal to settle rules for carbon markets on Saturday, as new draft documents on implementing Article 6 of the 2015 Paris Agreement suggested progress around all three of the key sticking points that have skuppered a deal on the issue at the past two UN climate conferences.
Article 6 would set the rules allowing countries to partially meet their climate targets by buying offset credits representing emissions cuts by others.
Companies as well as countries with vast forest cover are keen for a robust deal on government-led carbon markets in Glasgow, in hopes also of legitimising the fast-growing global voluntary offset markets.
But balancing those interests against worries that offsetting will go too far in allowing countries to continue emitting climate-warming gases has made some wary of a hasty deal.
On the issue of whether certain carbon trades should be taxed to fund climate adaptation in poorer nations, the latest proposals offer a two-track approach.
Bilateral trades of offsets between countries would not face the tax. That suggests capitulation to rich nations including the United States, which had objected to poor countries’ demands for the levy.
In a separate centralised system for issuing offsets, five per cent of proceeds from offsets will be collected to go toward an adaptation fund for developing countries.
Also in that system, two per cent of the offset credits will be cancelled. That aims to increase overall emissions cuts by stopping other countries using those credits as offsets to reach their climate targets.
Another stubborn roadblock had been whether carbon credits created under the old Kyoto protocol, the Paris Agreement’s predecessor, should be included in the new offset market system.
Negotiators had been wrangling over a compromise that would set a cut-off date, with credits issued before that date not being carried forward.
The latest text would carry over any offsets registered since 2013. That would allow 320 million offsets, each representing a tonne of CO2, to enter the new market, according to an analysis by the NewClimate Institute and Oko-Institut non-profits.
Campaigners had warned against flooding the new market with old credits, and have raised doubts about the climate benefits of some.
The latest compromise got a mixed response.
Some countries said it was unfair that old credits would be allowed in the new market, while they feared credits awarded under a forest scheme known as REDD+ were not explicitly included.
“Panama will not accept the proposed text in Article 6 as it currently stands,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, lead negotiator for Panama, said. “Forests must be part of this deal. If not, no way, no how, no deal.”
Double counting
One of the most contentious points had been on the question of whether credits could be claimed by both the country selling them, and the country buying.
A proposal by Japan may have resolved the issue, and appears to have backing from both Brazil and the US. Brazil’s past insistence on allowing double counting had torpedoed an Article 6 deal in the past.
Under the new proposal, the country that generates a credit would decide whether to authorise it for sale to other nations to count towards their climate targets.
If authorised and sold, the seller country would add an emission unit to its national tally and the buyer country would deduct one, to ensure the emissions cut was counted only once between countries.
The same rules would apply to credits used more broadly towards “other international mitigation purposes” – wording that some experts said could include a global scheme for offsetting aviation emissions, ensuring double counting doesn’t happen there too. – Additional reporting from Reuters
