Carnage. (Week two so far)

This is harder than I expected.

That goes for getting hundreds of delegates from around the world to agree to one single life or death pathway, but also to keeping a blog going while travelling and working. Unfortunately, the latter came calling at the end of last week and I didn't manage to get anything down here. Happily, the work itself was COP focused, so if you are after an overall summary of week one, check out my report here.

I left Glasgow on Friday. I don't know anyone who wasn't absolutely knackered from their experience up there, and I was no different. There was too much happening in such a short space of time to take it all in. If there was one conclusion to be taken from the week, however, it is that people care, and I left buzzing about taking action. Following the second week from the confines of my south London flat has been a fairly deflating experience by comparison. The BBC reported that the first week was a 'sugar rush of pledges'. The sugar hit has now well and truly worn off. Right now is not the moment to take stock of the situation; there is still too much that can happen, but it is fair to say that never have I shared more in the raw anger of those on the streets. Whatever frame you are operating in, this momentous opportunity is not being seized.

Here is a rapid outline of where we stand.

The week started badly with two major reports, one from the UNEP and one from the Climate Action Tracker consortium saying, contrary to the University of Melbourne and IEA estimates of 1.9°C and 1.8°C produced last week, that the pledges of week 1 have only taken us from 2.7°C to between 2.1°C and 2.4°C. The biggest reason for the discrepancy between last week's estimates and these two updates is that the latter focus on concrete short-medium term actions, of which the offering is sparse.

Week one should have been all about headline pledges reeling in the goal of 1.5°C, with week 2 focused on the nitty gritty of how they are met and by who. We are now at the stage, with proceedings scheduled to finish at 6pm tomorrow, where we effectively have neither.

The UK has released the first draft of the final text. Rather than a new treaty like Paris, this is meant to build on and consolidate what was decided then. By a stroke of luck I've got my hands on this google sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1X8V4VwhZHfzJowOIUuInFvBTaodO7wH91q6iDx46whY/edit#gid=0) which is the key to what is going on. It charts in real time the different parts of the draft text and how they change, as well as rating them. It is run by a number of civil society actors.

In short, the draft text, and decisions made so far, have been primarily focused on mitigation. Sadly, as shown by the studies above, these in itself have not been sufficient. Notwithstanding a crazy final day surprise, I think many have accepted that the best that will come now in mitigation terms is getting countries to come back every year with updated NDCs. Some have described this as kicking the can down the road, but even this is not assured and is being debated on now.

Adaptation is less covered in the draft. Climate finance as well as loss and damage remains a monstrous sticking point that is hindering wider talks. There is still no satisfactory resolution on who will pay what and when, with African nations coming to the table with further demands on top of the $100bn that is not even yet secured. It is becoming increasingly clear that the developing world needs more money to cope with the impacts of climate change, despite already spending high proportions of their GDP on it. The developed world is currently not providing.

Clarifying article 6 on carbon markets was billed as a, if not the, major focus of the talks. As you can see in the google sheet, no resolutions have been made. Key sticking points remain: the extent to which a share of proceeds from exchanges on a carbon market should go to adaptation in the developing world (shock), the technicalities of corresponding adjustments (basically how to avoid double counting when a reduction is sold), and finally whether credits from previous, much critiqued, emissions trading systems will be carried over into the current one.

One specific bit of lexicon to look out for: negotiators slid (intentionally or not) a bizarre curve ball into the draft text, discussing 'limiting global warming to 1.5°C by 2100' as a goal. Professor Myles Allen who drafted the IPCC assessment report which produced the 1.5C° figure noticed this and was quick to pile in. That wording would be disastrous, he argued, as it suggests that pumping co2 until 2090 would be fine, as long as we managed to produce the technology to suck it all back in in the last decade. This is clearly false and dangerous.

There is a huge amount to play for in the next day or so. Mexico and Russia have offered the UK's chief negotiator a bottle of tequila and a shot of vodka respectively to have the talks wrapped up by 6pm tomorrow. From what I have read, Mr Young will likely still be very sober at 6.01pm tomorrow, and perhaps even the same time the next day.

For live coverage see the Guardian. Good follows on twitter are Dr Simon Evans and Richard Black amongst many others

All photos are my own.