One of the positives to come out of last month鈥檚 COP26 climate summit in Glasgow was official recognition of the central role that climate science must play both in understanding and solving the problem. That might seem an odd thing to say 鈥� surely science has always been at the heart of the negotiations? Sadly, it hasn鈥檛. At COP24 in Poland in 2018, for example, a report on the impacts of 1.5掳C of global warming 鈥� specially commissioned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the meeting 鈥� was merely 鈥渘oted鈥� in the final text.
On that front, the newly agreed Glasgow Climate Pact is a major improvement. The final text explicitly acknowledges the latest IPCC report and notes its findings 鈥渨ith concern鈥�.
Advertisement
One area where the science really cut through was on methane 鈥� a powerful but short-lived greenhouse gas that has hitherto been treated as a secondary problem. Scientists have been arguing for a decade that cutting methane emissions is an obvious, simple and cheap way to significantly slow the rate of warming, but to little avail. As one leading researcher puts it, methane is a massive lever for effecting positive climate action, but nobody was seeing it.
鈥淟ike London buses, you wait 25 COPs for action on methane, then two things arrive at once鈥�
No longer. Like London buses, you wait 25 COPs for action on methane, then two breakthroughs come along at once: the Global Methane Pledge and a declaration from the US and China to collaborate on climate action. Together, these could shave a not-insignificant 0.2掳C off warming by mid-century, using existing methane-busting technology and at no net cost. As we explain on Methane is much worse than CO2 鈥� here鈥檚 what we should do about it, this is great news, not something we are used to hearing when it comes to climate change.
But it isn鈥檛 unequivocally good news. Grasping the methane lever doesn鈥檛 buy us extra time to deal with the real villain of the piece, carbon dioxide. We still have to decarbonise immediately. And making pledges is no substitute for making changes. Despite the sudden swerve to methane, the Glasgow Climate Pact merely 鈥渋nvites鈥� nations to 鈥渃onsider further actions鈥� to reduce it. It has taken 26 COPs to put science where it truly belongs, but we still have some way to go.
