The content on this website is intended for investment professionals and institutional asset owners. Individual retail investors should consult with their financial advisers before using any of the content contained on this website. Breckinridge uses cookies to improve user experience. By using our website, you consent to our cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. By clicking “I Agree” and accessing this website, you represent and warrant that you are agreeing to the above statements. In addition, you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this website. The content on this website is not intended for use or distribution outside of the U.S., unless permitted by applicable law.


ESG Newsletter published on January 3, 2022

COP26 Marks Progress and Highlights More Work Ahead on Climate Change


  • November’s COP26 yielded the Glasgow Climate Pact.
  • Almost 200 countries agreed to steps intended to address climate change risk.
  • Nevertheless, the immediacy of climate change risk demands that more be done and quickly.

Following the COP26 climate conference in November, Time’s headline may best sum up the feelings of many: “Why It Feels So Hard to Understand What Really Happened at COP26.” That may be because while world leaders struggled to agree on coordinated global efforts to control and measure the effects of climate change, actions were agreed to by almost 200 countries that attested to continued progress.

The Glasgow Climate Pact (the Pact) agreed to at COP26 moved the needle, many agree. Nevertheless, as amply illustrated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released just weeks before COP26, the immediacy of climate change risk demands that more be done and quickly.

Key steps forward that many observers agree were taken and critical goals yet to be achieved include:

  • COP26 hardened the 1.5-degree target. Conference’s organizers portrayed COP26’s key objective as putting the world on a pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Remember, the Paris Agreement was built around keeping temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, and “preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

    Countries and private-sector participants outlined programs and compromises on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Pact, but enforcement of how much and how quickly each nation should cut emissions over the next decade was unresolved.

    Still, the Pact includes 100 nations agreeing to cut GHG emissions by 2030 relative to 2020: CO2 nearly in half and methane by 30 percent. In addition, nations holding more than 85 percent of the world’s forests—crucial to absorbing carbon dioxide and slowing global warming—pledged to halt deforestation and land degradation by 2030. India, a large consumer of coal, pledged to reach net-zero GHG emissions—not adding GHGs to the atmosphere—by 2070.1

    The pact also requests that world leaders revisit and strengthen their 2030 targets under the Paris Agreement, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), by the end of 2022, which speeds up the typical five-year timeline for countries to submit new or updated NDCs.

  • The trend of broad government involvement continued to gain force. According to a list published by the U.N., Argentina sent its agriculture, economy, and development ministers. Italy sent its education minister along with its finance minister and minister for ecological transition. The Biden Administration (See Changed Power Structure in DC May Support Environmental Initiatives) brought more than 10 cabinet members and high ranking officials.

    Broad governmental participation is key to developing and implementing climate responses. Intergovernmental cooperation appeared to take a step forward as well. The U.S. and China agreed to work together to curb GHG emissions and limit warming over the next decade. The agreement between the two despite their wide-ranging differences surprised many observers.

    A carbon tax is a climate policy that many governments and companies claim to support as a means to reorient market economies toward decarbonization. At COP26, an agreement emerged to start setting up a global, U.N.-backed carbon credit that can be swapped and traded around the world. It is still short of a universal tax and is voluntary, but it appears to many to be a step forward in establishing a global market for trading carbon offsets.

  • Fossil fuels were a focus. That is essential and unprecedented. The Pact is the first U.N. climate deal to explicitly mention the need to move away from coal power and subsidies for fossil fuels. In the final text of the Pact, countries agreed to phase down the use of unabated coal power and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

    The Pact’s call to end unabated coal use—burning coal that is not offset with carbon capture and storage—could make coal as a fuel uneconomical and hasten decline of its use.

    On the other hand, a reference to ending inefficient fossil fuel subsidies was criticized as unclear, leaving room for interpretation, and fostering continued use.

  • The private sector and the capital markets are central drivers of progress. At COP26, for example, financial institutions promised more than $100 trillion2 to finance new electric vehicle commitments. COP26 also pointed up that the private sector and governments will have cooperative work to do from here in creating accountability measures, enabling private sector investment, and assuring an equitable transition to the next economy.

    For many, the frequent presence of corporate executives made clear a growing appreciation among corporations of sustainability as an essential strategy that will fundamentally change businesses and industries.

  • Small countries and the most vulnerable populations were a powerful part of COP26. For example, more than 100,000 young people marched in the streets of Glasgow to demand climate action. Collectively, the smallest countries that often face the most consequential effects of climate change while constituting a fractional share of the causes, forced discussion of the need for wealthy, high-emitting countries to provide developing countries financing to adapt to the effects of climate change.

    At the U.N.’s Copenhagen climate summit a decade ago, wealthy countries pledged to give poorer nations $100 billion per year by 2020 to support climate adaptation efforts. The target was never met. At Glasgow, donors promised to meet their original $100 billion promise by 2023. The pact also urges wealthy nations to at least double funding by 2025 to protect the most vulnerable nations from climate risks.3

    Many smaller countries also hoped to secure funds for loss and damage costs; that is, costs they are already incurring and that they will continue to incur as a result of climate change. Wealthy nations fought off a proposed fund to help poor nations deal with loss and damage and, instead, agreed to start a dialogue about the idea, a disappointing outcome for many.

The recurring theme of a review of COP26 and the Pact is that every step forward cleared a view to the vast amount of work yet to be done. Neither the journey to date nor the work ahead should be lost in the discussion of COP26.


[1] “4 Key Takeaways from COP26,” Foreign Policy, November 15, 2021.

[2] “Why It Feels So Hard to Understand What Really Happened at COP26,” Time, November 17, 2021.

[3] “6 takeaways from the U.N. climate conference,” The New York Times, November 13, 2021.




This material provides general and/or educational information and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer of Breckinridge services or products or as legal, tax or investment advice. The content is current as of the time of writing or as designated within the material. All information, including the opinions and views of Breckinridge, is subject to change without notice.

Any estimates, targets, and projections are based on Breckinridge research, analysis, and assumptions. No assurances can be made that any such estimate, target or projection will be accurate; actual results may differ substantially.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Breckinridge makes no assurances, warranties or representations that any strategies described herein will meet their investment objectives or incur any profits. Any index results shown are for illustrative purposes and do not represent the performance of any specific investment. Indices are unmanaged and investors cannot directly invest in them. They do not reflect any management, custody, transaction or other expenses, and generally assume reinvestment of dividends, income and capital gains. Performance of indices may be more or less volatile than any investment strategy.

Performance results for Breckinridge’s investment strategies include the reinvestment of interest and any other earnings, but do not reflect any brokerage or trading costs a client would have paid. Results may not reflect the impact that any material market or economic factors would have had on the accounts during the time period. Due to differences in client restrictions, objectives, cash flows, and other such factors, individual client account performance may differ substantially from the performance presented.

All investments involve risk, including loss of principal. Diversification cannot assure a profit or protect against loss. Fixed income investments have varying degrees of credit risk, interest rate risk, default risk, and prepayment and extension risk. In general, bond prices rise when interest rates fall and vice versa. This effect is usually more pronounced for longer-term securities. Income from municipal bonds can be declared taxable because of unfavorable changes in tax laws, adverse interpretations by the IRS or state tax authorities, or noncompliant conduct of a bond issuer.

Breckinridge believes that the assessment of ESG risks, including those associated with climate change, can improve overall risk analysis. When integrating ESG analysis with traditional financial analysis, Breckinridge’s investment team will consider ESG factors but may conclude that other attributes outweigh the ESG considerations when making investment decisions.

There is no guarantee that integrating ESG analysis will improve risk-adjusted returns, lower portfolio volatility over any specific time period, or outperform the broader market or other strategies that do not utilize ESG analysis when selecting investments. The consideration of ESG factors may limit investment opportunities available to a portfolio. In addition, ESG data often lacks standardization, consistency and transparency and for certain companies such data may not be available, complete or accurate.

Breckinridge’s ESG analysis is based on third party data and Breckinridge analysts’ internal analysis. Analysts will review a variety of sources such as corporate sustainability reports, data subscriptions, and research reports to obtain available metrics for internally developed ESG frameworks. Qualitative ESG information is obtained from corporate sustainability reports, engagement discussion with corporate management teams, among others. A high sustainability rating does not mean it will be included in a portfolio, nor does it mean that a bond will provide profits or avoid losses.

Net Zero alignment and classifications are defined by Breckinridge and are subjective in nature. Although our classification methodology is informed by the Net Zero Investment Framework Implementation Guide as outlined by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, it may not align with the methodology or definition used by other companies or advisors. Breckinridge is a member of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials and uses the financed emissions methodology to track, monitor and allocate emissions. These differences should be considered when comparing Net Zero application and strategies.

Targets and goals for Net Zero can change over time and could differ from individual client portfolios. Breckinridge will continue to invest in companies with exposure to fossil fuels; however, we may adjust our exposure to these types of investments based on net zero alignment and classifications over time.

Any specific securities mentioned are for illustrative and example only. They do not necessarily represent actual investments in any client portfolio.

The effectiveness of any tax management strategy is largely dependent on each client’s entire tax and investment profile, including investments made outside of Breckinridge’s advisory services. As such, there is a risk that the strategy used to reduce the tax liability of the client is not the most effective for every client. Breckinridge is not a tax advisor and does not provide personal tax advice. Investors should consult with their tax professionals regarding tax strategies and associated consequences.

Federal and local tax laws can change at any time. These changes can impact tax consequences for investors, who should consult with a tax professional before making any decisions.

The content may contain information taken from unaffiliated third-party sources. Breckinridge believes the data provided by unaffiliated third parties to be reliable but investors should conduct their own independent verification prior to use. Some economic and market conditions contained herein have been obtained from published sources and/or prepared by third parties, and in certain cases have not been updated through the date hereof. All information contained herein is subject to revision. Any third-party websites included in the content has been provided for reference only. Please see the Terms & Conditions page for third party licensing disclaimers.