Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Lobbying for a carbon fee and dividend

News

Join the Energy Crisis Action Team

by

The escalating energy bills and conflict in Ukraine are creating a big threat to climate change action.

Instead of doubling down and powering up the move to clean energy, there’s a threat that the UK government may turn to increased oil and gas production and fracking. This would create more greenhouse gases when we’ve been told by the IPCC that we have a short window left to drastically reduce emissions to save our liveable climate.

Increasing production could bolster the global energy market and increase Russia’s income from fossil fuels, and make it harder in the long run to adjust to life without fossil fuels.

To counter this, CCL UK are ramping up their lobbying efforts. We are looking for people to join our Energy Crisis Action Team – could you help with these?

  • Talk to other organisations to encourage them to join forces in our lobbying?
  • Research?
  • Encourage/brief CCL UK members to urgently contact their MP, pushing for a Climate Income to keep fossil fuel prices high but protect our household finances?
  • Promote our lobbying through an open letter to the PM and policymakers – social media, PR, letter to editor, promo film/animation making?
  • Provide lobbying or government policy expertise?
  • Provide expertise in clean energy solutions and the energy market?
  • Anything else?

Next meeting: Thursday 31st March, 8pm (via Zoom)

Join the Action Team

Graphic book of the IPCC report

by

It’s hard to stay optimistic in the face of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So Charles Hodgson, with many volunteers, has produced a graphic book set in a future where we have solved the problem of climate change, thanks to the IPCC report. Because IPCC is a project of the Canadian charity Succession.

It beautifully explains how the report – and peer reviewed science – works and why we need to listen to it.

Download the book, for free.

CCL Canada has also produced a laser talk with all the top information to inwardly digest to answer your MP/elected rep’s tricky questions, such as: the IPCC Working Group II included 270 authors from 67 countries, 47 coordinating authors, 184 lead authors, and 39 review editors. The report also draws on the work of 675 contributing authors and over 34,000 cited references. Before reaching the final product, Working Group II received a total of 62,418 expert and government review comments.

And: The IPCC praised the importance of carbon pricing:

“Pricing of greenhouse gases, including carbon, is a crucial tool in any cost-effective climate change mitigation strategy, as it provides a mechanism for linking climate action to economic development.”

Read the CCL Canada laser talk on the IPCC, here.

Climate Income – a Canadian success story

by

Watch a successful lobbying story, the CCL way, as experienced by CCL Canada.

Cathy Orlando takes us through the ups and downs of climate change lobbying – from a disinterested government, to the introduction of carbon pricing the climate income way, to a supreme court challenge – and two elections!

This talk and discussion was given at the February 2022 national monthly meeting.

Centre for Policy Studies has published a new report.

by

On Tuesday 11th January the Centre for Policy Studies produced a report entitled ‘Levelling-Up and Zeroing In’  

This report discusses how to create the right business and fiscal environment for levelling up and decarbonising our economy. The regions targeted in the levelling up agenda also happen to be the regions with the highest GHG emissions in England as historically they were and are the main industrial manufacturing areas. The report recommends six policies to achieve levelling up and Net Zero…..

  1. Make full expensing permanent and introduce a ‘green super deduction’ for clean business investment. Many British businesses will need to spend significant sums to decarbonise, such as on new equipment, machinery and plants. They should be able to fully offset these investments against their tax bills.
  2. Extend carbon pricing to more of the economy. The UK Emissions Trading System should be broadened out to include more of the economy – for instance, bringing agriculture, transport, and heating into its scope.
  3. Reform skills provision, beyond the young. Broadening the scope of the Apprenticeship Levy to make it much more flexible for employers to use, would accelerate the stated goal to improve and expand lifelong learning, while allowing workers to transition into clean jobs.
  4. Support investment into clean research and development. Funding for innovation needs to be maintained as well as examining how to better regulate emergent industries which could help deliver new technologies to cut greenhouse gases from sectors such as agriculture or in the energy supply.
  5. Adopt a carbon border tax. The carbon border tax, or ‘carbon border adjustment mechanism’ would provide a level of insurance against ‘carbon leakage’ and give British industries the reassurance they need that taking steps to decarbonise will not mean they are unfairly undercut by cheaper yet dirtier imports.
  6. Fund a bold new programme of technical universities. Revenues from the carbon border tax and wider carbon pricing should be used to create technical universities in areas in need of levelling up, to help equip workers for precisely the sorts of green jobs which will form the future green economy. Carbon revenues could also be channelled into economic development funds for local authorities.

The report takes the pragmatic stance of detailing how a carbon border tax would work with the current main carbon pricing system, ETS (as the EU is planning). CPS recently produced a report endorsing CI and the new report reiterates that this would be their preferred option. It could be pointed out that the plans to extend ETS to transport and buildings have already been curtailed!

The report states that…

In the longer term, the UK might wish to more comprehensively reform how it prices greenhouse gas emissions. In a recent report published by the Centre for Policy Studies – Pricing Pollution Properly – we mapped out a plan for an upstream carbon price which would uniformly price emissions across the vast majority of the economy. Widening the UK ETS to hitherto exempted sectors would no doubt be a quicker and politically easier way to apply carbon pricing to more of the economy, but this should not preclude the Government thinking about whether a new system, akin to that which we detailed, could be an even better way of doing carbon pricing.

 An expansion of emissions trading to more of the economy would generate significant amounts of revenue for the Treasury, through the sale of carbon credits. It is therefore critical to explore how this revenue should be spent. In Pricing Pollution Properly, we argued that this must not become a cash grab, increasing the costs to consumers and companies, and thereby alienating the former from the Net Zero agenda and making it harder for the latter to compete.Expansion of the ETS, or any other policies to reform how we price carbon, must therefore be revenue-neutral. For example, in our previous work we have advanced the idea of issuing carbon dividends to rebate any carbon revenues back to citizens.

Alternatively, the Government could explore reforming the tax system – to reduce the burden on both businesses and ordinary taxpayers. One possible reform would be to fund making full expensing permanent, as we have already detailed, which would lower the cost of the green transition, while likely boosting growth, wages and jobs. Whatever the Treasury might decide to do with any potential revenues, one primary consideration should be in relation to how it can offset any extra costs for the least affluent areas of the country, which the Government as a whole is focusing on levelling up.

The prevention of ‘carbon leakage’ is integral to the success of a Climate Income policy, either by offering rebates on exports so they can compete with other countries or a carbon border tax, imposing a carbon price on imports from countries without carbon pricing. This is especially important in countries like the UK  – the CPS report acknowledges that we owe a lot of our success in emissions reduction to the export of our manufacturing base. Hopefully the CPS’s support for argument for a carbon border tax will see its return to the government’s agenda and the current fuel price crisis will encourage the government to reconsider the merits of CI!

MP discusses the Climate Income solution to the fuel price crisis.

by

The fuel price crisis is a very real problem for our country. It could however be a springboard for a thorough overhaul of the energy system. The government could use the opportunity to follow the example of other European countries currently implementing Climate Income, as it had considered last year. The impact of the likely strategies were outlined in this article posted yesterday. Yesterday afternoon the crisis was debated in the House of Commons during an Opposition Day debate in which Labour had submitted a motion to put forward a bill on cutting VAT on household energy bills. There was some argument over who had the best policy on renewables but most of the discussion centred on the various mitigation measures such as cutting VAT, environmental levies, the Warm Home Discount and a windfall tax. As you will know the motion was defeated.

Only one MP, Dannny Kruger, (Con Devizes) looked at the bigger picture (watch here) that getting to Net Zero requires the cost of carbon to rise and a new strategy has to enable this to happen without hurting the economy and the majority of householders. The CCL Devizes group has been engaging with Danny since his election in December 2019 and congratulate Danny on his willingness to engage with our group on an issue which he admits he had little knowledge of or interest in back in 2019 and his willingness to take a stand and put forward a very cogent argument for CI at the debate.

In his own words….Real pressures on the cost of living are obviously coming down the track. I recognise that, and I also note the work that the Government have done and are doing to address it. It is worth noting in passing the contributions made by Treasury Ministers in the last year: reducing the universal credit taper rate and putting £1,000 in the budgets of 2 million low-income families, increasing the national living wage by more than 6.5%, freezing fuel duty for the 12th year in a row, and introducing the housing support fund for lower-income families. However, more clearly needs to be done. The debate has been helpful in identifying some of the options that are open to the Government, including the possibility of a cut in VAT on energy. I note that the Chancellor is considering that option among many others. However, it is worth observing that a cut in VAT on household fuel would disproportionately benefit those with larger homes. I think it is right for the Government to consider it as part of a suite of possible interventions and measures to support families during the current energy price spike.

There is one option that I have not heard mentioned today, although according to news reports last year it was probably being considered then. I refer to the policy of what is called a carbon fee and dividend. The fundamental challenge that we face, given our net zero commitments, is to reduce carbon emissions without hurting low-income families and the economy more generally. One way of doing that is to ensure that as we tax carbon emissions—as we bear down on carbon using fiscal levers—the income that is generated for the Treasury is reallocated directly to families, and to low-income families in particular, in the form of a carbon dividend or climate income, as it is sometimes called. Other countries have been experimenting with this. I accept that it is quite a statist solution and one that might not come naturally to Conservative Members, but I think it is worth considering the option of enabling the income from carbon taxation to go directly to low-income families.

Citizens’ Climate International (CCI) on COP26 and why the completion of Article 6 is a game changer!

by

CCI’s latest newsletter has further reflections on what was achieved at COP26. For the whole statement read Glasgow Pact invites historic race to enhanced climate action.  From these statements and recent webinars it is clear that CCI is hugely encouraged by the completion of Article 6 ‘Paris Rulebook’ which will facilitate serious  engagement with the issue of international carbon pricing, a policy ask of both CCI and the IMF. CCI is now expecting this to be very much on the agenda at the forthcoming G7 in Germany next year.

Premier Trudeau (Canada) stated at the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition meeting on November 2nd…Just as globally we’ve agreed to a minimum corporate tax, we must work together to ensure it’s no longer free to pollute anywhere in the world. That means establishing a minimum standard for pricing pollution. 

CCI notes that the Article 6.8 rules could spur major climate policy acceleration ….

Rules for non-market approaches (NMA) to “overall mitigation of global emissions” (OMGE), under Paris Agreement Article 6, Paragraph 8, hold immense promise for accelerating climate-smart finance, agriculture, land use, infrastructure, and development. “Non-market” refers to ways for nations to work together to eliminate pollution, where there is no emissions trading system (or market) involved.
New rules for Article 6.8 activities are important, because non-market approaches:
• Allow nations to cooperate to secure a faster pace of decarbonization;
• Signal wisdom of policies like climate income, to set strong carbon prices, while fostering green recovery;
• Make room for carbon border adjustments, to ensure climate leaders don’t lose trade to pollution offshoring;
• Increase likelihood of international “floor price” for carbon pollution;
• Recognize regulatory measures that mandate accounting, disclosure, and avoidance of carbon-related liabilities;
• Create conditions for climate-smart, nature-positive financial instruments;
• Link Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to Paris Agreement action and funding;
• Expand opportunity for mainstreaming of climate-smart finance;
• Invite integration of Earth science data platforms into financial decision-making information flows;
• Empower existing international institutions to become engines for climate action incentives and enforcement.

Short but highly significant news item – Tweet from Chris Stark on carbon pricing

by

Chris Stark,Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change, tweeted this this morning…So, in light of the Glasgow Climate Pact, we recommend that the Treasury reviews the role of the tax system in delivering Net Zero, including how higher and more consistent carbon prices can be achieved across the economy.

What more can we say!

The message on carbon pricing from business leaders at COP26 – and from even more countries in Europe….

by

Alongside COP26 Climate Action held the Sustainable Innovation Forum 2021 and Hydrogen Transition Summit. These forums revealed that there is the will out there to act but the most proactive companies are being hampered by the lack of ambition and price certainty of the current carbon pricing regimes such as the Emissions Trading Systems (ETS). Business leaders were stating that what they needed was an economy wide (preferably global, incrementally rising) strong carbon price which would send the right message to business and give the market certainty to enable long term planning of decarbonisation and CCUS….

”The best (thing) governments can do to promote hydrogen is a global carbon tax” Seifi Ghasemi Chairman, CEO and President of Air Products.

A good example of the opinion of business leaders who are pushing for Net Zero in their own companies and the businesses they advise is a recent paper published by the management consulting company Roland Berger which strongly advocates for a high and effective carbon price to render decarbonisation the cost effective policy for manufacturers. They argue for a carbon price of EUR 80-120/t by 2030 and EUR 90-150/t by 2040………

One way to encourage firms to reduce their carbon footprint is through carbon pricing systems, such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) or other cap & trade programs, carbon border adjustments (currently under discussion in the European Union) and specific tax instruments. At present, only 30 or so countries have introduced such mechanisms, covering around 20 percent of all carbon emissions – a figure that is sure to rise in the coming years. But very few of today’s prices in market-based mechanisms are in line with the estimated level required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, namely a carbon price of EUR 80-120/t by 2030 and EUR 90-150/t by 2040. This level is currently only seen in the most advanced countries, such as Sweden (EUR 123/t) and Switzerland (EUR 98/t). What would happen if carbon prices were raised to levels in line with the Paris Agreement? What impact would this have on business? To answer those questions, we estimated the “profit at risk” for companies in different industries – automotive, chemicals, energy and utilities, financial services, and so on – if the carbon price were to go up to EUR 100/t. Startlingly, we found that unless they take action, companies in many industries will see up to 50 percent of their profits put at risk. 

Stefan Schaible, Global Managing Partner, Roland Berger, gave a keynote speech at the Sustainable Innovation Forum. Asked to give his opinion on the results of COP26 he stated that it was as expected, not the lowest or the highest step in the right direction. He felt there had been a step change in opinion on the environment, shown by the fact that for the first time the German government included Green party members. There will be continuing pressure to reduce emissions targets step by step but….

“We need action. We cannot go on like this for certain sectors such as energy and transport. Only with carbon at $100 per tonne will profits shrink dramatically or even halve so they (the industry sectors) have to move”.

Another keynote speech was given by Dr Irene Feige, Head of Circular Economy Initiative at BMW group, relating the progress of BMW in creating a circular economy for car manufacture as part of its move to Net Zero and the pitfalls BMW was encountering. Circularity (ie using recycled materials and targeted recycling to at end of life) only rises the price of a car by 2% but it is hard to achieve at scale because the economy is not geared up for well regulated and standardised recycling and carbon free processes are too expensive. She argued that we need a clear signal from politicians with a high enough carbon price in major markets, there should also be more political pressure to introduce carbon pricing systems in most of markets (countries and across economies)…”The signals should be stronger and clearer so we can act now in order to get more circularity into the cars”.

At the Hydrogen Transition Summit Ian Parry (IMF) stated that carbon pricing must cover the bulk of global emissions and would need to be above $100 per tonne to give green hydrogen and biogas the level playing field they need. A spokesman from Drax also concurred that such a carbon price would allow green steel, for instance, to compete with ordinary steel. The most telling argument for adding a Carbon fee and dividend policy came from a spokesman for Mitsubishi at who said that it already makes sense to buy a hydrogen truck in Switzerland (which costs £200 k more than a diesel truck) because of the carbon price!

Interestingly business leaders who generally approve of ETS as a policy, talking in an European Roundtable on Climate Change and Sustainable Transition (ERCST)  webinar on decarbonisation of industries (29/11/21), acknowledged the problems facing the ETS policy now that it is hoping to move beyond the decarbonisation of the energy sector. Despite seeing the need for a higher carbon price to facilitate the adoption of hydrogen for heavy industry and transport, they did not envisage the ETS price could reach the desired level. (The ETS carbon price it has recently been historically high at 70 eur). They argued that the lack of mitigation for the populace (which a Climate Income policy would provide) prevents the ETS price from rising high enough to be an effective mechanism without causing social and economic problems (although they saw the solution to be more regulation and subsidies, which is equally needed but would be more effective with a clear carbon price signal). The ETS carbon price was also acknowledged to lack the certainty to help industries decide how to engage in the transition.

The other elephant in the room for the EU at the moment is that the proposed ETS scheme to cover more emissions by creating a separate ETS for Buildings and Transport is seeing a lot of opposition in the EU, especially from Eastern European countries for the same reasons that the UK government has just done a volte face on the policy, the social costs will be too high! The UK government volte face, interestingly came several weeks after the poorly attended parliamentary debate on the extension of carbon pricing. How would the debate have panned out if the cancellation of the ETS for Transport and Buildings had been announced beforehand? 

The bottom line is that industrialists who are busy trying to get their firms to Net Zero do not feel that the current carbon pricing regimes are strong enough to make decarbonisation the investment safe, cost effective move it should be. The price they want could only be achieved without too high a social cost by implementing Climate Income, as in Canada, Switzerland, soon Austria, Germany and possibly Norway, whose coalition government has produced a white paper on the policy. Apart from Canada all these countries are part of the EU ETS and not only show that it is possible to implement Climate Income alongside the ETS scheme but also that the ETS is considered an inadequate tool to achieve decarbonisation.

 

 

Was COP26 a success?

by

Was COP26 a success? Ask me again in a few years.  

As expected, the COP failed to produce adequate finance for developing nations whilst the combined emissions pledges of the world’s governments do not, yet, come near to the cuts required to avoid catastrophic climate change. However, the “Paris Rulebook” was completed which means that countries can now get on with fulfilling their pledges instead of just talking about them. Furthermore, there were some promising additional agreements made by smaller group of countries to tackle deforestation, methane emissions and closedown of coal-fired power stations. If all implemented, these steps will make a dent in emissions well within this decade and so Glasgow may be remembered as a turning point. But, if pledges are not met, it will be remembered as another fortnight of all talk and no action. Time will tell.

COP26 - the two hour queue to entry
COP26 – the two hour queue to entry © Dave Waltham

That’s my general assessment but there are two further things about the COP26 outcomes that directly relate to CCL’s core policy of Climate Income. 

First of all, as many of you probably saw, there was a last minute hiccup over “Calls [for] … the  phase-out of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”, with “phase-out” being replaced at the very last minute by “phase-down” in the key decision document of the conference. This is being reported in the media as due to concerns in China and India about their need for coal but if you listened to what India actually said during its “intervention” the concern was just as much about subsidies; a concern that was also expressed by Iran. In fact, many middle-income nations are  worried about being asked to remove subsidies, at the pump, that make petrol affordable to ordinary people in their countries. Removing such subsidies without massive social unrest is genuinely very difficult. 

Green Zone venue at COP26
Green Zone venue at COP26 photo © Dave Waltham

Our own James Collis (pictured, left, above with me) and other leading members of Citizens Climate International had the opportunity to discuss this with members of the delegation from a “global-south”, oil producing nation at  COP26. They emphasised, in particular, how climate income offers a way out of this subsidy-trap.  Quite simply the money used for the subsidy should be gradually converted into a dividend. The least well-off in society would find that their dividend was significantly larger than the price rise due to subsidy removal and the dividend would rise further as carbon-prices gradually replaced carbon subsidies. So, one thing I learned at COP was that Climate Income may be even more helpful to middle income nations than to rich ones. 

The second climate income point to come out of COP26 was the unexpected call “requesting” countries to “revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets … by the end of 2022”. As the holders of the COP presidency proposing this, the UK can hardly avoid complying with the request and so expect frantic efforts from the UK government to find ways to strengthen UK commitments quickly. We need to be arguing that Climate Income is the way to do this. No other single policy can be brought in quickly and have such a large impact. It’s time for us to be sharpening our pencils again ready to write to our MPs!

Words and pics by Dave Waltham, CCE and CCL UK observer at the first week of COP26

View from Dave Waltham's campervan
View from Dave Waltham’s campervan at COP26 photo © Dave Waltham

COP26 – Summing up statement from Citizens’ Climate International – Glasgow Pact invites historic race to enhanced climate action

by

The COP26 was tasked, during negotiations for the Paris Agreement itself, with providing a clear moment for upgrading global ambition toward stopping the advance of dangerous climate change. We must all recognize that negotiations themselves do not change the geophysical reality, but they can create conditions where the actions that follow do provide meaningful mitigation and protection.

Four major areas of ambition required immediate attention from world leaders, and from negotiators gathered in Glasgow:

    1. Significant increase in overall commitment of finance to climate action and adaptation.
    2. Significant increase in support from developed countries to developing countries for investment in adaptation to climate impacts, to build resilience and reduce risk.
    3. Significant expansion of efforts to mainstream zero emissions priorities in finance, economic development, and trade.
    4. Significant expansion of efforts to mainstream zero emissions priorities in finance, economic development, and trade.The Glasgow Climate Pact achieves real progress in all four of these areas, though it required difficult compromise from most countries and constituencies, and there is much more to do. First, the compromise: At the last hour, two countries withheld consensus unless language regarding the global phase out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies was changed.The agreed change was to “phase down” both.
      • Though this is historic, and the first time such a commitment is agreed by the 196 nations of the COP, it was a disappointment to many.
      • Even the COP26 President Alok Sharma rightly paused with emotion on recognizing that disappointment.
      • We want to emphasize the historic accomplishment of this commitment, and call for all nations to work together to ensure the steady, rapid, and decisive phase out of both coal-fired energy production and all fossil fuel subsidies.

      In the area of international cooperation to achieve overall mitigation of global emissions, agreed rules for Article 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8 of the Paris Agreement enhance the capability of countries to consolidate this kind of rapid emissions reduction and realignment of subsidies

      • We urge all nations to work toward tightening of monitoring, verification, accounting, and accelerating decarbonization.
      • We call for alignment of non-market approaches with a strict commitment to steady and accelerating decarbonization.
      • We ask that Article 6 activities begin to prioritize direct investment in nature, and overall emissions reduction.Citizens’ Climate International holds the view that all nations have a fundamental duty to their people, to:
        1. End fossil fuel subsidies;
        2. Put a decisive and transformational price on pollution;
        3. Foster inclusive clean development;
        4. Mobilize finance to achieve at least 50% overall mitigation of global emissions by 2030;
        5. Design and secure climate-smart sustainable food systems;
        6. Invest in ways that restore ecosystems and biodiversity;
        7. Defend and uphold human rights in all areas;
        8. Welcome active participation by non-Party stakeholders in both the design and implementation of climate solutions.

        The Glasgow Work Programme on Action for Climate Empowerment ensures ongoing work toward enhanced climate civics and public information, education, and training. While some of our own aims for ACE are not explicitly included, we welcome the Work Programme as a foundation for detailed formal and informal ACE activities going forward, including in the Action Plan to be agreed at the next meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies in Bonn.

        We recognize the importance of the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh Work Programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

        • Our own Reinventing Prosperity consultations led to the insight that resilience must be a baseline imperative, not a best-case preparedness outcome.
        • We also recognize the right of all people to expect a livable climate future, and recommend that the GGA aim for a world in which this right is honored and upheld.
        • The offer by the Maldives to host a workshop on the science-policy interface for effective implementation of the Work Programme aligns with our ACE4Ambition program for science activation through local climate civics.
        • We will aim to bring stakeholders’ voices into the acceleration of adaptation action and to ensure the transparent and resilience-building value of adaptation finance.

        We also note the powerful intervention from the Maldives in the stocktaking plenary:

        We have 98 months to halve global emissions. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us.

        We need more than conversation about Loss and Damage. We need a funding facility to ensure loss and damage compensation is delivered, both for reasons of basic fairness, and so all nations can address this planetary challenge on the basis of enhanced capability.

        As the Secretary-General notes in his review of “building blocks for progress” achieved at COP26:

        • Expanding financial support for vulnerable countries, catalyzing mainstream finance, and recognizing the need to strengthen support for vulnerable countries suffering from irreparable climate damage, get us closer to a formal global decision to work toward climate resilience as a core concern.
        • It is also historic that the COP26 calls on International Financial Institutions to consider climate vulnerabilities in concessional financial and other forms of support, including Special Drawing Rights.

        The Glasgow Climate Pact sets the stage for detailed negotiation on specific actions in the next meetings of the Subsidiary Bodies, and to direct policy, investment, development, and local capability, to achieve sustainable development that builds health and resilience for people and for natural systems, including the climate system. For it to do that, we need real, measurable, accountable, and cooperative action, to move all nations from deliberation to delivery.

        • To facilitate the role of mainstream finance in driving this measurable, accountable cooperative action, we call for detailed work on the complex integration of Earth science data into financial data systems.
        • Such integrative data systems should reveal the multi-system resilience value of specific spending and investment decisions.
        • We see this as a critical step for ensuring emissions reductions are early, pervasive, and accelerating, while investment in nature and in climate-smart food systems steadily expands.
        • We look forward to detailing the benefits of food and water resilience to overall climate action ahead of the COP27.

        We are grateful to the Chilean COP25 Presidency and the UK COP26 Presidency, and to the UNFCCC Secretariat, for coordinating and facilitating this process, and for welcoming the largest ever Citizens’ Climate delegation to the COP.

        • The role of observers in this process is not limited to keeping an eye on things. Observers play a structural and dynamic role in ensuring the overall process moves in an informed and collaborative way toward higher ambition.
        • Understanding that COVID safety measures played a role in the severe access restrictions experienced by observers at this COP, we look forward to supporting a much more inclusive and participatory process, going forward.

        The Glasgow Pact does not yet guarantee a 1.5ºC world. Indeed, no document can do that. But we do see a solid foundation for enhanced ambition and action going forward, and we commit to work in solidarity with those nations whose very existence is threatened by global heating above 1.5ºC.

        We must succeed together. Failure is not an option.

        Pictured above: The Citizens’ Climate delegation at COP26 included 23 delegates during the 2 weeks, and a wider group of allies working with us in Glasgow and remotely.

        Additional resources

        Read about CCI aims and activities around COP26:

        COP26 resources:

        • For detailed news about each day of formal sessions at the COP26, visit the Earth Negotiations Bulletin by IISD.
        • For official COP26 negotiations documents, visit the UNFCCC Glasgow Conference documents section.
        • To track climate action from non-state actors, including investors, industry, and municipalities, follow the Race to Zero.