Details of the Paris climate change deal are overlookedANTONIOS PAPASPIROPOULOS

The coal industry employs 350,000 Australians. Picture: AP

From an early age, most of us are encouraged to read the fine print in any contract or agreement.

That’s where the truth resides and how any significant commitment ultimately lives or dies.

With this maxim in mind, it is interesting to consider the numerous pledges and proclamations made at the recent climate change Conference of Parties (COP26) in Glasgow and question their validity.

Because as official observers to COP26, the World Coal Association is wondering what was really achieved.

Take for example, the non-binding pledge to “phase out” coal by 2030 championed so pugnaciously by COP26 president Alok Sharma, and agreed to by an eclectic coalition of countries.

According to Sharma, and a coterie of other leaders, the Glasgow summit was going to be the “COP to end Coal”. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Glasgow would “consign coal to history.”

Jotters and magic markers in hand, most attendees generally agreed: coal would be “phased out”.

Fourteen days later, in Saturday overtime, as the wording of the final consensus document was being hotly debated, it was left to India’s Climate Minister Bhupender Yadav to argue (rightly) that developing countries could not phase out coal and other fossil fuels when they still have serious economic agendas to pursue and poverty to eradicate.

Thanks to that intervention – with support from China’s delegation head, Vice Minister Zhao Yingmin, who said it was time for developed countries to honour their commitments and enhance support for developing countries, instead of merely urging other parties to raise their ambitions – it was agreed that unabated coal (as specifically referenced in the fine print of the Paris Agreement) could be phased down – but not out.

So, what really happened?

Climate leaders, especially those from the noble Global North – the UK, US, EU — have conveniently ignored the fine print in the Paris Agreement – particularly Article 10.2, which calls for all fuels and all technologies to be deployed in mitigating emissions.

Similarly, countries have failed to undertake the “cooperative action” which the Paris Agreement specifically demanded.

It is no wonder that countries across the coal-relevant Global South (including China, India, South Africa, Indonesia), are reluctant to make pledges because they simply have no basis in the fine print of the Paris Agreement.

These nations and other supporting coal-producing nations, including Russia and Australia, understand that energy security is fundamental to economic, social and environmental survival – the needs of billions of people. In a time of clean technological choice, it would simply be irresponsible for a nation to put all their eggs in one (energy) basket.

Nor should they.

And why would they?

The failure of $US100bn ($140bn) pledged at COP22 in Milan in 2020 to help developing countries decarbonise was the subject of much heated debate. A subsequent pledge was made to increase the amount. The details are nebulous and non-binding.

It is no wonder that countries with a significant coal footprint are dubious about the commitments they are being asked or forced to make.

They are naturally sceptical given the failure of leaders to adhere to the minutiae of the Paris mandate.

If the world is really serious about the Paris Agreement, it should agree to “phase in” all clean technologies, including clean coal technologies such as High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE), Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Coal-to-Hydrogen – technologies which are already recognised by climate science as essential to reaching a net zero emissions future.

The fine print is about abatement and diversity – the capacity for coal and other fossil fuels to be included in the different energy pathways individual countries choose. It is their sovereign right to make their own decisions, and each has a different footprint.

If global climate change soirees are the way forward, the debate is lost in semantics.

It has still not been recognised that coal remains essential to electricity supply in 80 countries, and it will still represent almost 40 per cent of Asia’s electricity supply by 2040 (according to the International Energy Association). It remains crucial to Australia’s economy as our second-largest export, worth about $50bn, and employing more than 350,000 Australians (direct and indirect).

Throughout the world, coal will remain the backbone and building block of economic progress, responsible for the supply of 90 per cent of the world’s cement, and 70 per cent of world steel (and the 170 tonnes of coking coal which goes into every wind turbine).

So, what happened at COP26?

Today’s bizarre geopolitical climate has driven a wedge between reality and dogma.

Until the Global North appreciates the differentiated responsibilities and decarbonisation pathways of the Global South, and appreciates the Paris fine print, we should not expect too much from roving conventions.

To recall an old idiom: we all need to walk a kilometre in the other’s shoes.

In the case for coal, we need to appreciate that all sizes and styles are necessary if we want to reach the same destination together.

Antonios Papaspiropoulos is Global Communications Director for the World Coal Association.