and then now, you know, very important families are running the country. the province is several towns. for many, many years already. islands rugby team emitted 7 straight victories by beating new zealand in front of 51000 fans in dublin, trailing by 5. it breaks the host and turn things around with ties from long. keller and helen doors. new zealand got back to within 3 points for 3, late penalties. so island, clint, it $29.00 points to $21.00. despite missing a couple of players after positive over 19 test england, what emphatic 3015 rugby windows over australia is going to try it half the wallabies have now lost their last 8 matches against england. ah, this is our da 0. these are the top stories negotiators that the humans cop 26 summit of agreed on a revised eagle to fight climate change and keep the goal of capping global warming

at 1.5 degrees. but some countries wanted more action to end the use of fossil fuels. the and secondly general acknowledged the disappointment felt by some nations, but said it's an important starting point. the outcome of cop $26.00 is a compromise. it's reflect the interests, the contradictions and the status. political lillian world. today, it is an important step, but it's not enough. we must accelerate climate action to keep alive the goal of limiting global temper to rise to 1.5 degrees. it's time to go into emergency modes . we must have fossil full subsidies phase out call, but the price on carbon protect well little communities from the impacts of climate change. saddam health ministry says at least 5 people have been killed during mass rallies against military rule. demonstrators accuse general under fata alba han

typing his grip on power. please use tear gas to break up processing. democratic republic of congo sizes marched against the appointment of a new electoral commission of a move that church leaders in widespread. they was illegal. russia's presidents denying any involvement in the board of standoff between barrows and poland, western nations that are accusing balance of encouraging migrants in refugees to cross the border into poland. a partial corona virus loc times begun in the netherlands, which is expected to last 3 weeks. from saturday. restaurants and shops must close hourly and spectators a band from big events. the government recommending no more than 4 visitors in any home new infections or at a record high reaching more than 16000 daily cases on friday. those are the headlines coming up next. it's inside story. goodbye. ah.

the cop 26 summit in glasgow reveal huge global divides on tackling climate change . scientists say the pledges to cut emissions and preserve our planet don't go far enough. so what's been achieved? this is inside story. ah hello and welcome to the program, my mamma, jim jones, the u. n. cop 26 summit in glasgow was called our last chance to combat the climate crisis. representatives from nearly 200 countries spent the past 2 weeks debating how to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius from pre industrial levels.

negotiations went past fridays deadline, delegates disagreed on the wording of the final agreement. contentious issues include phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and funding for developing nations to adapt to values. foreign minister even delivered and address knee deep in sea water to show how low lying pacific island nations are sinking. as sea levels rise will bring in our guests in a moment. first, here's what the president of comp 26 had to say. this is our collective moment in history. this is our chance to forge a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous will. and this is our time to deliver on the high ambition set by our leaders. at the start of the summit,

we must rise to the occasion. andrew simmons has this report from glasgow. cop 26 has really been the summit of 2 halves. the 1st week had some really ambitious projects coalitions of the willing came forward with a 100 countries pledging to cut 30 percent of highly toxic methane emissions by 2030. there was an agreement on deforestation. cutting it right back by the same time period. 2030. the deadline, more than 40 countries committed to shifting away from fossil fuel, some very new countries in there. now these were projects outside of cop $26.00 outside of the paris agreement. and they really did serve to give a lot of hope for the proceedings. nevertheless, the weekend we saw demonstrations, right the way across the world, tens of thousands amassing in the streets of glasgow on saturday. making the point

that really cop 26 was going nowhere based on what the chief so far in terms of the buyer's agreement. in terms of tackling emissions and emissions have been the center point of proceedings in week 2. 1 of the problems had been the wide variation and commitments. countries were prepared to make 2 emissions and the frequency of declaring their goals that had really caused a lot of angst throughout the 2nd week. that coupled with really targeting the issue of fossil fuel and whether or not pushed that harder and harder that does appear to have been the case. and so really you have now a situation where political will, has been the primary points at the end of the day on where things get decided on and where we go from here. andrew simmons for inside story. here are some of the pledges made during the past 2 weeks. china and the united states have announced they'll work together to keep temperature rises below 1.5 degrees celsius. but the

world's 2 biggest polluters have not given further details. more than $100.00 nations agreed to cut methane emissions by 30 percent. but countries with major agricultural industry as such as australia and china didn't sign up. they also failed to join a commitment by 40 countries to phase out coal power. india promised to cut emissions to net 0 by 207020 years later than the summits goal. a 10500000000 dollar fund was launched to help developing nations transition to renewable energy. and 110 leaders pledge to en deforestation by 2030 signatories include brazil where illegal logging of the amazon rain forest is rising. all right, let's bring our guests in glasgow, michael jacobs and environmental economists and professor at the university of sheffield in the u. k, from molly in the mall, leaves ibrahim johan,

the deputy director general of the environmental protection agency of the mold, eaves and in new delhi, arjun dut program leader at the council on energy environment and water. a warm welcome to you all, and thanks so much for joining us today. on inside. sorry, michael. let me start with you today. you are there in glasgow at the summit. after 2 weeks of speeches and negotiations, and dire warnings and sounding the alarms. would you consider comp $26.00 to be a success or failure? i think it depends how you measure it. if you judge it by what's happening in the world on climate change, where emissions are still rising women to be on a path to cutting emissions by 45 percent by 2030. if with the hold global temperature rise to one and a half degrees as was agreed in paris, the paris climate agreement in 2015. we are on course currently for to ra, raise emissions by about 16 percent in 2030. if you look at the devastating climate impact that we're seeing all over the world, particularly in the poorest countries,

they are not going to be changed by what was decided here. so if you look at the real world, i don't think there was any chance of cop 26 being a success because we are not on on. we need to change course and we haven't done that here. but if you've judge got 26 by what could have been achieved, what a international climate change negotiation, punish she then i think it's been a moderate success. the one big issue that we have to face here was to acknowledge that the emission cuts which countries have pledged are not good enough. they don't add up to a pathway which will limit the global warming to one and a half degrees. so countries of acknowledged him and they said we're going to come back next year with stronger commitment. so in a sense, the big decision has been put off by year. but this quote was never going to do anything better than that. but it has done that. so in that sense, i think it has been a, a qualified success given the limited ambition that any call could have had. and there is going to be more money for, for the most vulnerable countries,

the poorest countries. so that too is a good argent. michael says he believes that it's a qualified success. i saw you nodding along to a lot of what he was saying. so i want to give you the chance to jump in because it looks like you want to to. and i also want to ask you from your perspective, from your purch there in new delhi, what do you think has been achieved? thank you. well, from my perspective, golf 26, they were building it as make a break from the, from, from the perspective of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. if you, if you measure it from bad barometer, it has certainly not succeeded. i mean, there have been certain incremental progress mean in areas such as finalization are working towards finalizing the implementation guidelines for carbon markets under 6 have been enhanced b. colonization ambitions watched by some developing countries. there's also been greater ambition in terms of commitments towards our goal,

but that has been progress on a number of very important areas actually has simply not been enough. so michael talked about climate finance. actually the progress meter and climate finance is not sufficient to allow developing countries to be carbonized fast enough and advance or develop developed. countries also missed the opportunity to enhance their b carbonite ation ambitions. both long term as well as not aligned to align their project. she's the $125.00 degree board. so i would say that there has been some progress made, but overall it is, i would say it is not. michel arjen was just talking about the issue of financing. of course there been a lot of pledges of financial aid. those are all fine and good. they have been praised. but what i'm curious about is money actually getting from richer nations

to developing countries fast enough and you have raised exactly the same point there that many of the developed country delegates have been raising here, particularly the poorest countries and the ones that are suffering the most from climate change, if you look at the money that has been dispersed from richer countries to poor lungs, which president as far as we know, up to 2019 only amounts to about $80000000000.00 a year, which is less than the $100000000.00 a year that was meant to be provided by 2020 most of that has gone into not the poorest countries and it's not going to adaptation that is coping with the climate change the countries already experiencing most that has gone into mitigation. that is reducing emissions in areas like renewable energy, and that's good. those are cutting global as a helping to cut global emissions. but a lot of that is the loan. so it's not really a guest. and it is going to countries which have stronger financial systems of the

road where the richer countries feel more confident that the money will be invested and of course will make them a return if those loans and what the poorest and most vulnerable countries have wanted is grant money, so that simple grants for adaptation, the coping with climate change and that has always been the poll relation. if you like, upon it finance. only about a quarter of climate finance has gone to the poor countries. the adaptation they wanted, it doubled to haul, at least they would like more than that. and one of the good things about this agreement is that it does commit the develop wells to providing around hall doubling of current rates to go towards adaptation. now that needs to be in the form of grants, and that's not yet been specified. and many of the poorest countries say, you know, we're penalized because many the most vulnerable countries say we're penalized because we're experiencing major effects and climate change. but we're not poor enough to qualify for some kinds of aid. so there's still a lot of questions about the delivery of this, of this money and

a lot of questions about exactly where it's going develop are not very good at accounting for it. so a lot of work still to do, but some progress made. i think i'm sure your, your guests from developing countries will have their own views on miss to argue. and let me ask you about that. how big is the gap between what is needed by developing countries and what has been provided by rich countries? right. so in terms of the, the scale of finance that would be needed to let the reporter figure, like mike pointed out around 80000000000 and i'd stretch reported. and i'd get to that in a moment. but in terms of what is needed, the, the scale of finance is more along the lines. a one trillion annually is what would be needed to actually said was on a b, carbonite dish and boss, we're towards $1.00 degrees. and i want to stress that the current laws, as my good pointed out, that there are having some criticisms on the actual accounting of these flows. so

developing countries have stated that a, that a large chunk of the reported flow that actually just commitments and not actually flaws. some of the reported figure they're saying to say is also do not represent you an additional loss. and michael correctly pointed out the shadow grant capital is actually quite low. so while we need high a scale of flaws, that will blow into commercially viable investment opportunities where money is already flowing, but, but women are more needed. we need more grant capital to enable money to flow into investment opportunities, but it is not. so these include nice and acknowledges that may not have an established business business models or technology performance track record. but just renewables such as maybe storage and the wants of the boss, a majority of a database and these up in this case does not exist. and as might be clearly also pointed out that under developed countries,

investment risk or high also need ground capital either in the form of directly direct grants or more smart way of jumping to this capital. it is true capitalistic. be risking off investment opportunities that would then allow far greater quantities of private check with capital law and below the gap between existing laws and those desired or sustainable, automates abraham. what do island nations like the mall deeds need in order to stop the effects of climate change? oh, i guess the last thing, damage or talk is very important for us as well. if we look at mold deeds, we are spending, we have spent over the past 5 years now, more than 100000000 for coastal protection alone. let alone providing safe drinking water v v. i spending a lot of money. and

a lot of this is because we need to adapt to the a increase in impacts of climate change. and also a lot of small island nations have huge debts. oh, to various dorna organizations as well as donor countries as well. we have huge debts, owed to some countries which have been given us. i loans for various kinds of projects. or many of these projects are also a dictation related because cost of protection as well as some investments for mitigation, such as. so alina g, these projects also we have got a financial, a back in descent and the form of lawns as dick money as well. so we have to also think about this issue as well. our g, d, p. if we're 30 or 40 percent of a g,

d p to be paid for lawns and debts, lee will no longer have equity for adaptation projects as well. so we, we, we really need this, michael. there's been a lot of focus at cop $26.00 on the role of fossil fuels. or what do you think about this discussion that's been had over the last 2 weeks? it's been given much more focus than in previous cop summits. correct? well, it's the very 1st time that a coke has actually mentioned, fossil fuels in a final text at all. you might think, rather remarkable, given the fossil fuels all the major cause of climate change. but the fossil fuel factors of the countries in which they are located and always resisted any language about fossil fuel. this text, those one very good thing in, in that sense it says we need to accelerate the phase out of coal. coal is the most pollution in carbon terms and also in local evolution terms of all the field. and

we're not going to deal with this problem. if coal is continue, continues as the the energy source of choice of countries around the world. that's difficult because many countries all dependent on coal, but this text that knowledge is that we have to phase out coal much more quickly than we're currently doing now. so that's good. but there's no mention of oil and gas as various people have pointed out. there were lots of oil and gas companies trying to lobby countries here, and they have succeeded in keeping any mention of oil and gas out of the tech. there are countries like saudi arabia that really didn't want them mentioned. and we have a, a really very weasely form of words on fossil fuels subsidies that the tech schools for fossil fuels subsidies to be phased out. but i mean, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. there are, of course, no efficient fossil fuel subsidies, subsidies the fossil fuels is paying the polluter. and the principle that we all agreed was that the pollution pay. so none of them are really inefficient. another

very efficient but strangely, countries we've claimed their fossil fuel subsidies are efficient and they've always used that word as a get out and doing anything. so the language on coal is good and significant because it's the 1st elsewhere the text really hasn't dealt with that issue. but of course, if countries do have to face out, do have to improve their emissions reduction commitments over the next 10 years as they have committed to do that will involve in practice a phasing down on fossil fuels. so it will happen whether or not there's a specific mention of that in this text. abraham, i just want to take a step step back for a moment to look at the effects of climate change. because the mol leaves, of course, you know, are you're dealing with the ramifications of climate change. more than most countries in the world. climate change has meant that them all these as fighting for it's very survival. so without a drastic cut in emissions, just how dire could things get there? well, and, you know, 1.5 degrees itself. it's also quite diet,

quite me tricks because the moral disease and entirely coral reef based country and corals ah get in damage and bleached continuously over the past 2 decades. we had seen more warming and so the mold is, will be facing huge consequences. he b tips, b, it be beyond 1.5 degrees at this moment, also via phase sigma. lot of damage. but of course, tell you roshan about 90 percent allowing him denial in southeast with coastal erosion and coastal engineering infrastructures to protect the coastal erosion from coastal erosion is quite huge expense which will be in billions of dollars if we are to fortify all the 186 or so islands inhibited by people. so we are

facing this and also very important i expect is they increase in storm activity in the indian ocean. as the experts had say, the indian ocean is warming more rapidly. then in the past decades and saw the storm sand stone activities in the indian ocean has increased. and the mold is, is now getting the eggs from these storms, which actually have more devastating effects on indian sri lanka and bangladesh. but we're also facing the prints of this as well. so ah, $1.00 leaves the bare minimum that we need to survive and beyond that will be quite devastating for small island nations like goals. arjun, one of the biggest surprises to come out. the last couple of weeks was this agreement, china and the u. s. the agreed to boost climate cooperation over the next 2 decades . that something that took a lot of people by surprise,

these joint step that were agreed to by the world's 2 biggest carbon emitters, to limit global temperature rise. are they going to be enough to really make a difference? started suddenly encouraging, but you know, as abraham was pointing out that even $1.00 degree result in dire consequences. the other thing to be, you know, really mindful in the, in the climate change debate, principle of equity and plan of justice. there are costs certain countries such as the developed countries like the united states, but also china in terms of its historical as well as predicted emissions are expected to carbon, you know, part of the majority of the space leaving very little or developing countries. so while the agreements between the us and china are a good start, what is needed is enhanced ambition from major emitters. so essentially for climate justice,

we need developed countries and regions like the you and the us to launch their net 0 years. and also large image like china, which will, of course, are expected to are predicted to honor the maximum carbon space. if you take into account with historical and future projections should then also further along than you yes. give countries like them all these and other developing countries, the room to meet their developmental needs. and then also yes, or still their economies towards the end 0 in a time frame that has them balance these priorities. so in summary, we'd like the developed countries. and once you've met your past, countries like china jar of course, also a larger mentors to achieve nephew next and other developing countries to then achieve nat geo, based on their respective circumstance. and if i might just point to what michael mentioned,

one of the job text also interestingly mentioned adjust transition in addition to our goal. so a fortune off the climate finance that we talked about should also be you know, directed towards achieving a just transition even in tandem with abraham. where do we go beyond just political action at this point? what, what needs to be done from a business community and individual level in order to really limit climate change lead local level in our country as well. you know, democracy, transparency, human rights. these are critical issues. i believe not all the will be nations or small island nations, have a social justice degree t a at the local level are very highly integrated in depth. let me see planning and strategy and also the transparency with regard to the climate finance. these

needs to be boosted and when the projects are being limited, the local communities need to be engaged small. and also with regard to be honest and education. not just at the school level, but to community level related to was t t as well. ours, we only have about a minute and a half left. let me just ask you, do you at this point, have a sense of hope that enough goodwill will come out of this summit and that it will actually lead to change while got 26 and glasgow at least give us looses, of hawk in terms of the acknowledgment on the current deficiencies in, in the, in the, in the, in the delivery of finance, in, in the inadequacies of current ambitions with regard to the combination that is the

1st step but more needs to be done. and it, and why. and i mean, regardless of hope, it just needs to be done. and that is the most important thing, michael. the fact that so many youth activists and protesters have been coming out . does that suggest you that things could change even if political leaders don't do enough going forward? i think that is the source of hope because of the honest, we've spent a quarter of a century not doing enough from climate change. the 1st scientists report in the i p c. c, the governmental panel on climate change in 1990. we've known this issue was, was upon us and we haven't done enough. and it is the young people of today who are angry about the angry my generation for not acting enough and they are all the voters. it's mauro. so i think it's been very, very significant. we've seen so many young people expressing that anger. we've seen new spokespeople emerge not just gratitude berg, but other young people,

particularly from the global cell on icing. politicians will now be under incredible pressure from their young people to, to take the further ambitious, the june has talked about. and i think that is one of the most hopeful things to come out of this. all right, well we have run out of time, so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much to all of our guests. michael jacobs, abraham hammond and our zone duct. and thank you to for watching, you can see the program again any time of visiting our website, al jazeera dot com and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha, inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter handle is at ha, inside story from him. how much am jerome in the whole team here, bye for now. ah, ah.

the corona virus has been indiscriminate in selecting victories. it's devastating effects of plague, every corner of the globe, transcending class creed and color. but in britain, a disproportionately high percentage of the fallen have been black or brown skins. the big picture traces the economic disparities and institutional racism that is seen united kingdom fail, it citizens, britain's true colors pop to on al jazeera on counting. the hot climate change is reshaping this a hell. food insecurity, cruise and the pandemic leading to a rise in violence and terrorism of the drought ravaged central valley and california that provides vast amounts of food for the us. but for how much longer?

counting the cost on al jazeera ah award winning documentary from around the world $1.00 out g 0. ah, i'm robinson and doha, the top stories on al jazeera governments have reached a deal and limiting the effects of climate change at the top 26 summit in glasgow. the deal follows 2 weeks of negotiations, but many countries say it doesn't go far enough. one major sticking point is cole, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. india post for the last minute change to soften the language from facing it out to phasing it down. this bought anger from small island states. this commitment on hall had been a bright spot in this package. it was one of the.