This year's G-20 Summit was dominated by talks of climate change issues that leaders understood had to be settled if they were to not only progress individually as nations in tackling the climate crisis, but also in order to make a global effort to clamp down on climate effects. The G20 participates in a Summit annually to discuss economic cooperation hosted each year by the nation that holds the rotating presidency, this year being hosted by Italy. Ultimately, despite climate change dominating discussion at the conference, as well as taking the spotlight in media coverage and public discourse surrounding COP26, leaders still failed to adhere to their previous promises, let alone agree on stricter policies to make a longer lasting impact. 

Governments such as the United States and Canada as well as climate activists criticized the talks for being shallow and not dramatic enough to make a difference. The G-20 was aware that their conclusions reached about climate change were important because they set the stage for what will occur at COP26, the UN’s climate change conference. Many leaders and activists are unhappy with the momentum that the G-20 leaders adopted. 

A lack of coordination between powerful G-20 nations due to rising tensions has made it hard to confront global problems such as climate change and has led to hollow promises to tackle climate change rather than solid answers. “The world is becoming more divided,” said Thomas Wright, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution; “We are seeing this divergence between a constellation of authoritarian countries and a constellation of democratic countries.” 

Importantly, the G20 leaders agreed upon a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by the middle of the century. The official statement did promise to “stop financing new, unabated coal plants internationally by the end of this year.” This is a strong message to coal-reliant nations but the G-20 leaders did not agree to end coal power in their own nations.” Rather, the leaders only declared to phase out coal power “as soon as possible.” Fossil fuel subsidies were yet another topic brushed to the side, the G-20 countries simply said the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies would occur “over the medium term.” Climate activists are furious with the fact that countries that contribute the most to climate issues cannot decide on a solid date to achieve important goals and instead rely on a vague timeline for a serious crisis. 

While methane contributes to global warming less than carbon dioxide, its effect still isn’t negligible. The G-20 eliminated their draft which stated it would “strive to reduce our collective methane emissions significantly”, replacing the statement with a watered-down version stating its reduction is “one of the quickest, most feasible and most cost-effective ways to limit climate change.”

The official statement released by the G-20 leaders does not mention achieving net-zero by 2050. Net-zero refers to lowering greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible, with the ultimate goal being a country absorbing the same amount of emissions from the atmosphere as it puts out. Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi did state in his conclusion that the goal of net-zero was also a goal that should be optimally achieved by mid-century, but yet again, the theme of not setting a solid date persisted. Although the EU and the US have stated independently that they want to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are aiming for 2060. Scientists have explained that in order to avoid climate disaster, warming temperatures cannot exceed 1.5C. They currently lie at around 1.1C above pre-industrial temperatures. Net-zero commitments from major nations would be a primary way to ensure scientists' goals are met and therefore, a global crisis subverted. 

It is likely the empty promises of climate action reached at the G-20 Summit are reflective of tensions between democratic and authoritarian countries. During a news conference directly after the Summit ended, President Biden stated that though China and Russia play a big part in the vague plans for climate change, they “didn’t show up in terms of any commitments to deal with climate change.” UK Prime Minister Borris Johnson said, “leaders’ promises without action were starting to sound hollow… these commitments… are drops in a rapidly warming ocean.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also showed disappointment in regards to China and Russia, proclaiming that many Western countries were upset with the lack of strong language in the agreements and were fundamentally ashamed by the clear disregard for climate change impacts.

China’s and Russia’s absence from the picture sets an unfortunate precedent for the climate change agenda, sending a message to the world that these two nations, with leaders that have consolidated power, performed illegal cyber hacks, and perpetuated human rights abuses are becoming increasingly less interested in cooperating on a global scale. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proclaimed in a news conference: “Why do you believe 2050 is some magic figure...if it is an ambition of the EU, it is the right of other countries also to have ambitions...no one has proven to us or anybody else that 2050 is something everyone must subscribe to.” 

Climate change is one of the world’s most important issues to tackle. Governments  must execute plans to ensure demanding cuts in warming gases if humanity is to ensure the global temperature does not rise above the suggested 1.5C pre-industrial average. As stated by G-20 Prime Minister Mario Draghi, “either we act now, face the costs of the transition and succeed...or we delay acting and pay a much higher price later, and we fail.” The underwhelming gains made at the summit not only undermined the severity of the climate crisis but also placed significant pressure on COP26 to compensate for the losses of G-20. There is no cause for a complete loss of hope, as COP26 did produce The Glasgow Climate Pact , the first-ever climate proposal to explicitly propose effective means of coal while also stressing more money to be allocated to developing countries struggling with the impacts of climate change and further emission cuts. However, it still falls short of ensuring temperatures do not rise to 1.5C. Leaders need to acknowledge that understanding the scientific facts of climate change cannot be avoided;  the only way to make a long-lasting change is through political action.