It’s a desert, where little grows. It’s a climate conference, where water is scarce inside buildings and out, lines are long, tempers are short, meetings go late and above all progress comes in one-drop drips. Yet hope springs forth in the strangest places. Not in the naïve new face, but in the hearts and minds of veteran activists and officials, who have gone through this frustrating sleep-depriving exercise, not once or twice but numerous times. And it blooms in a odd metal “tree” sculpture in a center square here at the United Nations climate summit in Egypt. People write their hopes on green paper leaves. “Hope is the only meaning (sic) that makes us ALIVE!” Mohamed Ageez, an Egyptian youth activist wrote. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore looks at more than 30 years of climate change efforts and sees hope in progress and change. United Nations Environment Programme Director Inger Andersen and The Nature Conservancy Chief Scientist Katharine Hayhoe see it in all the people in the halls working hard. Read: COP27: Rich countries couldn’t agree yet on loss and damage funding for vulnerable nations And Christiana Figueres, the former U.N. climate secretary who helped forge the 2015 Paris agreement and then started a non-profit called Climate Optimism, sees hope not as a noun but an action verb. “Hope is a verb with its sleeves rolled up,” Figueres told The Associated Press, quoting poet David Orr. “I think of hope and optimism as being very active and in fact being precisely the reason why we roll up our sleeves.” Asked how he doesn’t despair after seeing heat-trapping emissions rising year after, Gore told the AP: “Despair is a big word. You know, they used to say denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. Here we are in Egypt and despair ain’t just a tire in the trunk. It’s a real factor. But we also have the basis for hope.” He pointed to several political wins this year. “In August, the U.S. passed the biggest climate legislation in history,” Gore said. “In September, the people of Australia made a historic change and agreed to become part of the leadership in the world toward renewable energy. And then in October, just days ago, the people of Brazil made a decision to stop destroying the Amazon and start fighting the climate crisis.” “When people feel vulnerable to climate despair, I urge them to look at the real progress that is being made.” Read: CSOs express dissatisfaction on the outcome of COP27 Whenever United Nations environment chief Andersen feels down in these meetings she takes note of what’s happening all around her in the pavilions and offices: “In these halls, you will see people huddling over solutions over networking, saying ‘Here’s what we did. Maybe you can do that’.” Climate scientist Hayhoe finds hope in the same place. “So when people say it was a complete failure and there’s no hope, I say, just look around at every single face here,” Hayhoe said. “There are tens of thousands of faces here, and every single one of them just about wants to change the world.” That tree of hope? Gone. It’s been moved away from negotiations to the “green zone,” far away from negotiators.  

As the U.N. climate talks in Egypt near the half-way point, negotiators are working hard to draft deals on a wide range of issues they’ll put to ministers next week in the hope of getting a substantial result by the end. The two-week meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh started with strong appeals from world leaders for greater efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and help poor nations cope with global warming. Scientists say the amount of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere needs to be halved by 2030 to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord. The 2015 pact set a target of ideally limiting temperature rise to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, but left it up to countries to decide how they want to do so. Read more: Climate Change: Int’l community must act with fund and solutions to help most vulnerable nations With impacts from climate change already felt across the globe, particularly by the world’s poorest, there has also been a push by campaigners and developing nations for rich polluters to stump up more cash. This would be used to help developing countries shift to clean energy and adapt to global warming; increasingly there are also calls for compensation to pay for climate-related losses. Here is a look at the main issues on the table at the COP27 talks and how they might be reflected in a final agreement. KEEPING COOL The hosts of last year’s talks in Glasgow said they managed to “keep 1.5 alive,” including by getting countries to endorse the target in the outcome document. But U.N. chief Antonio Guterres has warned that the temperature goal is on life support “and the machines are rattling.” And campaigners were disappointed that agenda this year doesn’t explicitly cite the threshold after pushback from some major oil and gas exporting nations. The talks’ chair, Egypt, can still convene discussions on putting it in the final agreement. CUTTING EMISSIONS Negotiators are trying to put together a mitigation work program that would capture the various measures countries have committed to reducing emissions, including for specific sectors such as energy and transport. Many of these pledges are not formally part of the U.N. process, meaning they cannot easily be scrutinized at the annual meeting. A proposed draft agreement circulated early Saturday had more than 200 square brackets, meaning large sections were still unresolved. Some countries want the plan to be valid only for one year, while others say a longer-term roadmap is needed. Expect fireworks in the days ahead. SHUNNING FOSSIL FUELS Last year’s meeting almost collapsed over a demand to explicitly state in the final agreement that coal should be phased out. In the end, countries agreed on several loopholes, and there are concerns among climate campaigners that negotiators from nations which are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for their energy needs or as revenue might try to roll back previous commitments. MONEY MATTERS Rich countries have fallen short on a pledge to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance for poor nations. This has opened up a rift of distrust that negotiators are hoping to close with fresh pledges. But needs are growing and a new, higher target needs to be set from 2025 onward. COMPENSATION The subject of climate compensation was once considered taboo, due to concerns from rich countries that they might be on the hook for vast sums. But intense pressure from developing countries forced the issue of ‘loss and damage’ onto the formal agenda at the talks for the first time this year. Whether there will be a deal to promote further technical work or the creation of an actual fund remains to be seen. This could become a key flashpoint in the talks.

U.N. climate talks closed Saturday with an agreement on efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels after a last-minute compromise on coal power. Participants from nearly 200 countries also agreed that accelerated action is necessary this decade to address global greenhouse gas emissions, as they wrapped up the nearly two-week conference in Glasgow, which was extended by one day. The agreement at the climate talks, known as COP26, was reached after India and other coal-reliant countries raised objections in last-minute negotiations, which watered down language to a commitment to the "phase-down" of coal power instead of "phase-out." Alok Sharma, the president of COP26, said that confining temperature increase to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels is "a historic agreement" as it had been a major goal when Britain took on the role of the presidency-designate two years ago. Read: Climate consensus appears near; India objects to coal plans Still, "what this will be judged on is not just the fact that countries have signed up, but it will be judged on whether they meet and deliver on the commitments," he said. Japanese Environment Minister Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi, who attended the talks, said his country will maintain its policy of using coal power, though it will continue to promote the development of technology to reduce carbon emissions and "prioritize renewable energy as the main power source." Japan has become more reliant on coal power after suspending nuclear power plants following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. It plans to generate 20 percent of total nationwide power through coal in fiscal 2030, in contrast to European countries' shift away from coal power. Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has urged world leaders to take immediate and drastic actions, tweeted, "The #COP26 is over. Here's a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah," adding, "the real work continues outside these halls." Read: Climate talks resume, cautious coal phaseout still on table The 2015 Paris accord sets out a global framework to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change by limiting global warming to "well below" 2 C, preferably to 1.5 C, compared with levels before the Industrial Revolution. One of the goals of the COP26, the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was to keep alive the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 C. The participating countries must also review and strengthen their emissions-cut targets for 2030 by the end of 2022 under their agreement.

Governments are poised to express “alarm and concern” about how much Earth has already warmed and encourage one another to end their use of coal, according to a draft released Wednesday of the final document expected at U.N. climate talks. The early version of the document circulating at the negotiations in Glasgow, Scotland, also impresses on countries the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about half by 2030 — even though pledges so far from governments don’t add up to that frequently stated goal. In a significant move, countries would urge one another to “accelerate the phasing out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels” in the draft, though it has no explicit reference to ending the use of oil and gas. There has been a big push among developed nations to shut down coal-fired power plants, which are a major source of heat-trapping gases, but the fuel remains a critical and cheap source of electricity for countries like China and India. While the language about moving away from coal is a first and important, the lack of a date when countries will do so limits the pledge’s effectiveness, said Greenpeace International Director Jennifer Morgan, a long-time climate talks observer. “This isn’t the plan to solve the climate emergency. This won’t give the kids on the streets the confidence that they’ll need,” Morgan said. Read: US envoy calls for joint action to tackle climate crisis right now The draft doesn’t yet include full agreements on the three major goals that the U.N. set going into the negotiations — and may disappoint poorer nations because of a lack of solid financial commitments from richer ones. The goals are: for rich nations to give poorer ones $100 billion a year in climate aid, to ensure that half of that money goes to adapting to worsening global warming, and the pledge to slash emissions that is mentioned. The draft does provide insight, however, into the issues that need to be resolved in the last few days of the conference, which is scheduled to end Friday but may push past that deadline. Still, a lot of negotiating and decision-making is yet to come since whatever emerges from the meetings has to be unanimously approved by the nearly 200 nations attending. The draft says the world should try to achieve “net-zero (emissions) around mid-century.” That means requiring countries to pump only as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as can be absorbed again through natural or artificial means. It also acknowledges “with regret” that rich nations have failed to live up to the climate aid pledge. Poorer nations, which need financial help both in developing green energy systems and adapting to the worst of climate change, are angry that the promised aid hasn’t materialized. Read: US envoy calls for joint action to tackle climate crisis right now “Without financial support little can be done to minimize its debilitating effects for vulnerable communities around the world,” Mohammed Nasheed, the Maldives’ parliamentary speaker and the ambassador for a group of dozens of countries most vulnerable to climate change, said in a statement. He said the draft fails on key issues, including the financial aid and strong emission cuts. “There’s much more that needs to be done on climate finance to give developing countries what they need coming out of here,” said Alden Meyer, a long-time conference observer, of the European think-tank E3G. The document reaffirms the goals set in Paris in 2015 of limiting warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, with a more stringent target of trying to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) preferred because that would keep damage from climate change “much lower.” Highlighting the challenge of meeting those goals, the document “expresses alarm and concern that human activities have caused around 1.1 C (2 F) of global warming to date and that impacts are already being felt in every region.” Small island nations, which are particularly vulnerable to warming, worry that too little is being done to stop warming at the 1.5-degree goal — and that allowing temperature increases up to 2 degrees would be catastrophic for their countries. “For Pacific (small island states), climate change is the greatest, single greatest threat to our livelihood, security and wellbeing. We do not need more scientific evidence nor targets without plans to reach them or talking shops,” Bruce Bilimon, the Marshall Islands’ health and human services minister, told fellow negotiators Wednesday. “The 1.5 limit is not negotiable.” Separate draft proposals were also released on other issues being debated at the talks, including rules for international carbon markets and the frequency by which countries have to report on their efforts. The draft calls on nations that don’t have national goals that would fit with the 1.5- or 2-degree limits to come back with stronger targets next year. Depending on how the language is interpreted, the provision could apply to most countries. Analysts at the World Resources Institute counted that element as a win for vulnerable countries. “This is crucial language,” WRI International Climate Initiative Director David Waskow said Wednesday. “Countries really are expected and are on the hook to do something in that timeframe to adjust.’’ Greenpeace’s Morgan said it would have been even better to set a requirement for new goals every year. In a nod to one of the big issues for poorer countries, the draft vaguely “urges” developed nations to compensate developing countries for “loss and damage,” a phrase that some rich nations don’t like. But there are no concrete financial commitments. “This is often the most difficult moment,” Achim Steiner, the head of the U.N. Development Program and former chief of the U.N.’s environment office, said of the state of the two-week talks. “The first week is over, you suddenly recognize that there are a number of fundamentally different issues that are not easily resolvable. The clock is ticking,” he told The Associated Press.    

One phrase, really just a number, dominates climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland: The magic and elusive 1.5. That stands for the international goal of trying to limit future warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times. It’s a somewhat confusing number in some ways that wasn’t a major part of negotiations just seven years ago and was a political suggestion that later proved to be incredibly important scientifically. Stopping warming at 1.5 or so can avoid or at least lessen some of the most catastrophic future climate change harms and for some people is a life-or-death matter, scientists have found in many reports. The 1.5 figure now it is the “overarching objective” of the Glasgow climate talks, called COP26, conference President Alok Sharma said on the first day of the conference. Then on Saturday he said the conference, which takes a break on Sunday, was still trying “to keep 1.5 alive.” For protesters and activists, the phrase is “1.5 to stay alive.” Read: Glasgow climate negotiators seek to resolve 4 key challenges And 1.5 is closer than it sounds. That’s because it may sound like another 1.5 degrees from now but because it is since pre-industrial times, it’s actually only 0.4 degrees (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from now. The world has warmed 1.1 degrees (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times. The issue isn’t about the one year when the world first averages 1.5 more than pre-industrial times. Scientists usually mean a multi-year average of over 1.5 because temperatures — while rising over the long term like on an escalator — do have small jags up and down above the long-term trend, much like taking a step up or down on the escalator. But it’s coming fast. Scientists calculate carbon pollution the burning of fossil fuels can produce before 1.5 degrees is baked in. A report a few days ago from Global Carbon Project found that there’s 420 billion tons of carbon dioxide left in that budget and this year humanity spewed 36.4 billion tons. That’s about 11 years worth left at current levels — which are rising not falling — the report found. To get there, scientists and the United Nations say the world needs to cut its current emissions by about half as of 2030. That’s one of the three goals the U.N. has set for success in Glasgow. “It’s physically possible (to limit warming to 1.5 degrees), but I think it is close to politically impossible in the real world barring miracles,” Columbia University climate scientist Adam Sobel said. “Of course we should not give up advocating for it.” A dozen other climate scientists told The Associated Press essentially the same thing — that if dramatic emission reductions start immediately the world can keep within 1.5 degrees. But they don’t see signs of that happening. That 1.5 figure may be the big number now but that’s not how it started. At the insistence of small island nations who said it was a matter of survival, 1.5 was put in near the end of negotiations into the historic 2015 Paris climate agreement. It is mentioned only once in the deal’s text. And that part lists the primary goal to limit warming to “2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.” The 2-degree goal was the existing goal from 2009’s failed Copenhagen conference. The goal was initially interpreted as 2 degrees or substantially lower if possible. But in a way both the “1.5 and 2 degree C thresholds are somewhat arbitrary,” Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson said in an email. “Every tenth of a degree matters!” The 2 degrees was chosen because it “is the warmest temperature that you can infer that the planet has ever seen in the last million years or so,” University of East Anglia climate scientist Corinne LeQuere, who helped write the carbon budget study, said at the Glasgow climate talks. Read: Greta Thunberg calls UN climate talks a failure When the Paris agreement threw in the 1.5 figure, the United Nations tasked its Nobel Prize-winning group of scientists — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC — to study on what difference there would be an Earth between 1.5 degrees of warming and 2 degrees of warming. The 2018 IPCC report found that compared to 2 degrees, stopping warming at 1.5 would mean: — Fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog and infectious diseases. — Half as many people would suffer from lack of water. — Some coral reefs may survive. — There’s less chance for summers without sea ice in the Arctic. — The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting. — Seas would rise nearly 4 inches (0.1 meters) less. — Half as many animals with back bones and plants would lose the majority of their habitats. — There would be substantially fewer heat waves, downpours and droughts. “For some people this is a life-or-death situation without a doubt,” report lead author Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald said at the time. That finding that there’s a massive difference to Earth with far less damage at 1.5 is the biggest climate science finding in the last six years, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Director Johan Rockstrom said in an interview at the Glasgow conference. “It gets worse and worse as you exceed beyond 1.5,” Rockstrom said. “We have more scientific evidence than ever that we need to really aim for landing at 1.5, which is the safe climate planetary boundary.” “Once we pass 1.5 we enter a scientific danger zone in terms of heightened risk,” Rockstrom said. In a new IPCC report in August, the world hit 1.5 in the 2030s in each of the four main carbon emissions scenarios they looked out. Even when scientists and politicians talk about 1.5 they usually talk about “overshoot” in which for a decade or so the temperature hits or passes 1.5, but then goes back down usually with some kind of technology that sucks carbon out of the air, Stanford’s Jackson and others said. As hard as it is, negotiators can’t give up on 1.5, said Canadian Member of Parliament Elizabeth May, who is at her 16th climate negotiations. “If we don’t hang on to 1.5 while it is technically feasible, we are almost criminal,” May said.

World leaders have been meeting for 29 years to try to curb global warming, and in that time Earth has become a much hotter and deadlier planet. Trillions of tons of ice have disappeared over that period, the burning of fossil fuels has spewed billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the air, and hundreds of thousands of people have died from heat and other weather disasters stoked by climate change, statistics show. When more than 100 world leaders descended on Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for an Earth Summit to discuss global warming and other environmental issues, there was “a huge feeling of well-being, of being able to do something. There was hope really,” said Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Turtle Clan of the Onondaga Nation, one of the representatives for Native Americans at the summit. Now, the 91-year-old activist said, that hope has been smothered: “The ice is melting. ... Everything is bad. ... Thirty years of degradation.” Data analyzed by The Associated Press from government figures and scientific reports shows “how much we did lose Earth,” said former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William K. Reilly, who headed the American delegation three decades ago. That Earth Summit set up the process of international climate negotiations that culminated in the 2015 Paris accord and resumes Sunday in Glasgow, Scotland, where leaders will try to ramp up efforts to cut carbon pollution. Back in 1992, it was clear climate change was a problem “with major implications for lives and livelihoods in the future,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the AP this month. “That future is here and we are out of time.” Read: ‘Everything is at stake’ as world gathers for climate talks World leaders have hammered out two agreements to curb climate change. In Kyoto in 1997, a protocol set carbon pollution cuts for developed countries but not poorer nations. That did not go into effect until 2005 because of ratification requirements. In 2015, the Paris agreement made every nation set its own emission goals. In both cases, the United States, a top-polluting country, helped negotiate the deals but later pulled out of the process when a Republican president took office. The U.S. has since rejoined the Paris agreement.