Toward a Super-COP? Timing, Temporality, and Rethinking World Climate Governance

The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Glasgow in November 2021, resulted in significant intergovernmental agreements, including the Glasgow Climate Pact, the completion of the Paris rulebook, and several informal deals. While Glasgow saw progress, it fell short of many observers' expectations (see, e.g., Nature 2021; Climate Action Tracker 2021). Pointing not to what was possible politically but to what was necessary scientifically, these observers highlight a significant "ambition gap" in measures needed to keep global temperatures below 1.5°C of warming.

While a "firm step forward," observes former UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres (2021), "we actually needed a sprint." How can the world achieve greater ambition on climate? The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; 2021, 12) maintains that efforts to keep 1.5°C warming within reach, the chief aim of the international process, will need to concentrate on the coming decade. Drawing on new research on timing and temporality in world politics, this article shows that current modes of climate governance incentivize the type of incrementalism seen at COP26. In view of high levels of interdependence among states, governments seek to leverage each successive national commitment to maximize others' emissions reduction pledges. Here questions of timing are fundamental. By making explicit the distinct temporal logic at play, we can better understand the nature of the collective action problem facing states.

What is needed is a system that better incentivizes states to approach their true bottom lines in talks and to bargain integratively, thereby aligning climate negotiations with states' true national interests. The approach advocated in this article is the organization of an extraordinary UNFCCC meeting, a "super-COP." This meeting would eclipse the existing intergovernmental process, providing states with a conspicuous, unique time frame around which expectations can converge. It should be cohosted by the United States and China. In addition to policy-relevant conclusions, the article sheds light on issues of temporal coordination in climate politics and warns against the desire among some prominent actors to annualize turns of the Paris "ratchet" mechanism.

Assessing COP26

Following a summer of extreme weather in 2021, including wildfires in North America and flooding in Europe and China, there was a growing sense of necessity concerning COP26. Anticipation was strengthened by the release of the first chapter of the IPCC's sixth assessment report, just months before the conference. As these events brought into focus the immediacy of the threat, states were requested to enhance the level of ambition in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.¹

The meeting resulted in the Glasgow Climate Pact. The pact comprises a range of items, including strengthened measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, build resilience, and provide necessary finance. States committed to reducing the gap between existing emissions reduction contributions and what is necessary to keep global temperatures below 1.5°C of warming. Glasgow also provided a platform for informal agreements on coal, methane, transportation, and deforestation. Taken together, these informal agreements will result in a two-gigaton reduction in global emissions. Compared to the estimated fourgigaton reduction achieved in Glasgow through heightened NDCs, these deals will bring significant value if implemented (Climate Action Tracker 2021).

All told, the emissions reductions commitments of Glasgow could limit the mean global temperature increase to 2.4°C by century's end (Climate Action Tracker 2021). The ambitious tone of the Glasgow pact is also encouraging, signaling strengthened political will. Widespread recent commitments to reach net zero, combined with a more singular collective focus on limiting warming to 1.5°C, rather than 2°C, is indicative of progress that, even five years ago, would have seemed wildly optimistic. Yet, it is not enough.

The Challenge Facing Future COPs

In many respects, Glasgow was a perfect storm for climate ambition. It was presided over by an active chair and backstopped by an engaged US administration. The aforementioned extreme weather and IPCC report came as preparations were picking up steam. Though it was not designed to...