Glasgow pact coal and subsidies – UGC NET Question

The Glasgow Climate Pact was the first COP cover decision to explicitly mention moving away from unabated coal power and from inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. This wording linked climate mitigation directly with concrete changes in energy systems and public finance. It also recognised the need for targeted support and a just transition for poorer and vulnerable groups while pursuing these goals. Therefore, the option that highlights phase-down of unabated coal and phase-out of inefficient subsidies best captures this landmark feature of the pact. (UNFCCC)

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because COP26 did not impose an immediate worldwide legal ban on all fossil fuel use from 2022; countries retained flexibility based on national circumstances. Such a sweeping, instant ban would have been politically and economically unrealistic, and it does not appear in the actual text of the pact. This option exaggerates the ambition and misunderstands how COP decisions operate.

Option B:
Option B is correct as it reproduces the key new language of the Glasgow Climate Pact on coal and fossil fuel subsidies. It reflects the political compromise of “phase-down” rather than “phase-out” for coal and focuses on inefficient subsidies, which parties agreed must be reformed. This formulation is widely cited as a historic first in the UNFCCC process and directly addresses structural drivers of emissions.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because the pact does not endorse expanding coal-fired power to 2050; instead, it recognises that coal use needs to decline for mitigation. Supporting additional coal capacity would be inconsistent with pathways compatible with the 1.5°C goal and is not part of the agreement.

Option D:
Option D is wrong since the 1.5°C temperature limit was reaffirmed, not removed. Glasgow decisions emphasised “keeping 1.5°C within reach” and called for narrowing the gap between current pledges and the emission reductions needed to achieve that target, so this option misrepresents the outcome.