After big bang announcements at the beginning of the COP26 climate summit, representatives of 196 countries and stakeholders are now racing to bridge significant divides over climate financing, net-zero commitments and how they can achieve the 1.5°C target as these remain major sticking points that could make or break global efforts to mitigate the climate crisis.

Multiple people involved in the negotiations, which will last for six more days, said there exists hard red lines between developed and developing countries and these must be resolved for countries to come to a consensus on the Glasgow pact text.

They said at least three issues are particularly divisive: the delivery of the $100 billion climate finance that was agreed on in 2009; whether that amount is increased after 2025 period; the 1.5°C target and how it will be achieved globally now that several countries, including India and China, have announced they will not be able to go carbon neutral by 2050.

India, the third largest carbon emitter, has committed to a net-zero goal by 2070 and China, the largest emitter, has pegged 2060 for the shift.

In the first domain pertaining to climate finance, developed countries have not agreed to any independent review of the delivery of $100 billion. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is keeping accounts of that fund. “The developing countries have said OECD has been very generous in its accounting of the money so they want a review. The donors (developed countries) of course are deeply uncomfortable about such a review and number crunching. This I think will remain a red line,” said a senior official from the EU delegation.

Then comes the issue of how much rich countries should in fact be contributing, with many nations, including India, demanding the aid to be increased, and whether some major economies like China should also be donating. “Will there be an incremental increase or not? And who will be included as the donors? South Africa for example has said $750 billion will be needed. African countries have asking for $1.3 trillion. It’s impossible when it’s difficult to deliver even $100 billion. There are conversations on including China and Saudi Arabia among donors. I doubt if India will also be included but cannot rule out. So there is a second red line,” another senior official from a developed country delegation added.

There are also discussions on whether big flows of private capital can be included in this finance goal.

“There is no agreement on the nature of finance. We have made it clear that we don’t consider commercial finance to be climate finance. It has to concessional and grant based. They are not agreeing to review also. Most of our NDCs are conditional to long term finance. I think if there is no agreement on finance, the COP process will weaken in coming years and countries will do whatever they can according to their circumstances,” said a senior official of the Indian delegation in Glasgow.

NDCs refer to nationally determine contributions – commitments that countries confirm. Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced an unprecedented commitment by India to go carbon neutral by 2070 and other steps, including raising the share of renewable energy in supplies by 2030 and reducing aggregate carbon emissions by a billion tonne by the same year. But these are yet to be pencilled in.

“We are not particularly concerned about the text language whether it says 1.5 or 2°C. We are very categorical about our carbon space and climate finance. I think there will be a breakdown if these are not resolved,” he added, suggesting India’s NDCs may be contingent on the other issues.

At the heart of these disagreements is the contention by developing countries that rich nations have historically emitted more carbon as they gained economically, and must now share from these gains with poorer countries that typically have had lower per capita emissions. The rich countries contend all nations must do more to reduce emissions, including poorer nations where fossil fuel is still the cheapest source of energy.

Tens of thousands of climate activists paraded on Saturday through the streets of the Scottish city, demanding that governments step up actions to reduce the use of climate-warming fossil fuels that damage the planet.

There has also been no resolution on carbon markets either according to Indian officials. The issue of counting pending credits from Kyoto era remains; US and EU also plan to introduce the issue of carbon tariff in international trade which India is not agreeable to.

In terms of the marquee decisions, the main elements were circulated among parties two weeks back but progress has been slow as differences over the 1.5°C goal, the $100 billion funding and how much of the proceeds would go to adaptation, carbon markets etc, continue.

“I would be deeply disappointed if even the language in the cover decision is weaker than the G20 text. The IPCC has shown various pathways to keep the goal in sight. But it hasn’t said all countries will transition to net zero by 2050. A mechanism will need to be worked out as to who transitions in advance. These will be debated on next week,” a senior member of the EU delegation said.

In 2009, at COP15 in Copenhagen, developed country parties committed to a goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. A finance delivery plan co-led by minister of environment and climate change of Canada, Jonathan Wilkinson, and state secretary of the German federal ministry for the environment, Jochen Flasbarth, said last month the $100 billion fund will only be mobilise in 2023, a delay of three years.

According to the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance, developing countries need almost US $6 trillion up to 2030 to implement their NDCs under the Paris Agreement.

The first week of the Glasgow conference was dominated by national statements by heads of states on November 1 and 2, followed by pledges to end deforestation by 2030, and a US- and EU-led pledge to slash methane emissions by 30% by 2030.

Nearly 100 countries have signed these pledges but India kept away mainly due to concerns on impact on international trade and on agricultural sector. Over 40 countries also pledged to phase out coal in a separate event at COP 26. India, China, Australia and US did not sign that pledge.

Regardless of when all countries start phasing out coal, major financial support will be needed for a just transition, highlighted Sandeep Pai, research lead at Center for Strategic and International Studies. “National governments will need to create long-term policies and provide finance to coal regions. Emerging economies will need climate finance in stages. In the first stage, finance will be needed to fund demonstration projects to show just transition can be done. There is lack confidence given the track record,” he tweeted.

“The spectacle that the UK Presidency of COP26 is trying to create through grand announcements is at odds with what is happening within the UN climate talks. There are claims of trillions of dollars being mobilised for climate action but inside the negotiations, there is huge resistance to even define what climate finance entails. This allows rich nations to fudge numbers and take no accountability,” said Harjeet Singh, senior advisor, Climate Action Network International.

“We know that there are disagreements of the 1.5 degree goal. At the events, there is a recognition that vulnerable people are facing climate impacts and the need for increasing financial support. But, behind closed doors, rich nations are pressuring developing countries to hold their tongue and avoid setting up a new stream of finance to help communities recover from devastating floods and rising seas,” he added referring to red lines drawn by developed country parties on climate finance for ‘loss and damage.’