For Cop26 – and beyond – to be a success we need inspiration, not desperation

The climate conference in Paris – where landmark pledges were agreed – was always going to be a hard act to follow, writes Mary Dejevsky

Boris Johnson has said he is ‘very worried’ the Cop26 summit could end up a failure (Getty)

Even for someone with as generally sunny a disposition as Boris Johnson, the imminent prospect of underwhelming progress at Cop26 must be a bit of a downer. Indeed, the prime minister admitted as much at his children’s Downing Street press conference, where he said he was “very worried” that it might go wrong and it was touch and go whether it would produce “the agreements that we need”. This was not the customary Johnsonian happy-speak.

To be sure, as preparations for failure go, such a warning given to an assembly of under-12s long familiar with the prophecies of Greta Thunberg was probably at the milder end. Nonetheless, it is hard to feel that all has gone smoothly in the run-up to the climate summit.

The biggest blow, for the UK government at least, surely came with the announcement that the Queen would be sending her greetings to the opening by video, rather than attending in person. The full-court turnout of the royal family, led by the Queen, was a high point of the G7 summit in Cornwall in June, and there had clearly been hopes for a repeat at Glasgow, where almost 200 countries will be represented.

But this huge international gathering, seen as the second opportunity for the UK to show off “Global Britain” in the first year of Brexit – and if possible outshine the Paris climate summit of 2015 – had already lost some of its lustre. One reason was that two of the global “big beasts”, without which any agreements will look seriously deficient, are not being represented at the top level. Neither Xi Jinping of China nor Vladimir Putin of Russia are coming.

Officially, they cite Covid-19 precautions, and both leaders have been cautious about travel since the scale of the pandemic was recognised. But their absence – and the presence of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel (still Germany’s chancellor, until a new coalition is formed) will make the gathering look more weighted towards the industrialised north than it would otherwise have done – and appearances at such gatherings matter.

This brings us to the choice of Glasgow to host the summit. I happen to be an enthusiast for Glasgow. But, for all the UK’s experience of hosting big international gatherings, maybe this time not enough homework was done – even though, because of the pandemic, Cop26 was postponed by a year. Accommodation seems to me to be in short supply; two weeks is a long time to cope with the extra weight of traffic such a large summit will bring, even if a transport strike has now been called off. But the background of tensions between the SNP government in Edinburgh and Westminster, which mean both will be competing for the laurels (or rushing to pass the buck for failure), has complicated preparations and may not augur well.

The immediate run-up to Cop26 has also been marred by disagreements, both internationally and within the UK. Internationally, a shortage of gas in Europe has driven up prices and led to accusations that Russia, as the major supplier, has been rigging the market – charges it denies. But the clear contradiction between demanding more gas from Russia, while at the same time trying to prevent the opening of the new Nordstream-2 pipeline – as some countries are trying to do does not bode well for harmonious discussions in Glasgow.

Meanwhile, in the UK, it would appear that the burden of any decarbonising shift will not only fall disproportionately on consumers, but also widen the gap between rich and poor – whether it is the switch to electric cars or to expensive and still largely untried electric pumps for domestic heating, or the rise in gas prices that has been exacerbated for UK customers by poor regulation of the energy market. Improved buildings standards on the other hand, for better insulation and more efficient heating, seem nowhere on the horizon.

Worse, while boasting of its carbon-cutting credentials, the UK has also sent some very mixed messages about its intentions. It has approved two major airport expansions – of Heathrow and Stansted – since the Paris summit. There are plans for a new coal mine in Cumbria, which, a minister said, would have a “negligible impact” in the global scheme of things, and the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has just announced a tax cut for shorthaul domestic flights. These may be details, but even details send signals, especially if they come from the summit host.

Such mixed messages might have been avoided with streamlined communications, but there seem to have been glitches here, too. The spokesperson for Cop26, Allegra Stratton, seems to have been given the job as a sort of consolation prize after her appointment as Downing Street spokesperson did not work out. Since then, she has been little seen or heard – though doubtless that will change next week.

Alok Sharma, the president of Cop26, has also taken what might be termed a low profile, especially since it was revealed how many air miles he was recording, even as the rest of the country was essentially locked up. The risk now is that as the gathering itself starts to dominate the UK agenda, it will come to be seen, however serious the talking, as a jamboree that squanders a massive amount of taxpayers’ money (while involving a lot of carbon) that could have been conducted more sustainably on Zoom.

Against all the negativity, it could also be argued that Paris was always going to be a very hard act to follow, not only because of the exhaustive preparations made by France and its diplomatic flair but because implementation – which is what Glasgow is about – is far harder than eliciting the initial pledges that were made at Paris. The Queen will not be there, but Prince Charles will stand in, and he is someone who has made the environment a lifetime cause. As for the other two major absentees, Xi and Putin, that could be more symbolic than substantive, as both will send highly placed envoys, even if there are some decisions that only leaders can make.

It has also to be said that the UK tends to be very good at presentation and ministers will, very expertly, put the best possible gloss on whatever outcome is reached. So long as there is no serious public clash (and the chances are greatly diminished without Donald Trump), enough can probably be salvaged to allow Cop26 to be classed a success. How far any of this will convince the UK public, still less the citizens of Glasgow, that it has all been worthwhile is another matter.

I just wonder, though, whether some more positive messages might have been more persuasive – and not just for the public in the host country – than the constant drumbeat of climate doom. Some point to parts of the world where warming may provide short-term advantages. But in truth the thing to remember is that inspiration can be a better motivator.

Earlier this week, Channel 4 devoted its whole hour’s news programme to a continent by continent catalogue of gloom. By all means prepare for the worst, but let’s not abandon all hope for the best – it might even be a more effective way of persuading people, and countries, to act. Just a tad closer to Boris’s view, perhaps?