COP26 was supposed to mark the moment the world agreed to keep most fossil fuels in the ground. It didn't. The Glasgow summit delivered pledges on methane, coal, and deforestation, but researchers and negotiators warned the agreement opened several large doors for oil, gas, and coal interests to keep operating as usual.
The gap between announced ambition and actual production is the territory the Glasgow text failed to close.
Quick take
- Research presented at COP26 suggested roughly 89% of coal and 59% of gas reserves must stay underground to give a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C.
- A methane reduction pledge launched, but key emitters including Russia, China, and Australia did not sign on.
- 13 countries, led by Denmark and Costa Rica, launched an alliance to end oil and gas production within their borders.
- Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide were running at roughly $11 million every minute, dwarfing private finance commitments.
- A voluntary net-zero banking coalition still included institutions that had financed fossil fuel expansion to the tune of $575 billion.
The five loopholes shaping the Glasgow text
The problem was not a lack of promises. It was the structural gaps those promises left behind.
Subsidies stay alive.** The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero gathered major banks behind a decarbonisation push, but governments kept feeding the industry roughly $11 million per minute in direct support. Voluntary finance cannot offset policy that artificially lowers the cost of producing the very fuels meant to be phased out. Until subsidies are treated as a climate issue, not a budget line, GFANZ-style pledges remain cosmetic.
New extraction keeps getting approved.** Even the UK, which hosted the summit, had around 40 fossil fuel projects in its pipeline. Australia kept adding new gas and coal developments, including eight NSW projects approved after the state's 2030 emissions goal was set. Without an explicit ban on new fossil fuel projects and a clear schedule for winding down current production, the pipeline keeps refilling the atmosphere.
Offsets used as a get-out clause.** Carbon sequestration and offsets are useful in hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and agriculture. They are not a substitute for actually producing less coal, oil, and gas. When companies can buy a "green" label without cutting real output, the headline emissions number falls while the physical supply of fossil fuels does not.
Industry influence on the negotiation itself.** The largest single delegate group at COP26 came from the fossil fuel sector. In Australia, more than AU$136.8 million in industry donations to political parties was registered between 1999 and 2019. A Santos-branded screen at the Australian pavilion became a symbol of how embedded that access is. Few other policy arenas tolerate similar levels of insider pressure.
Disconnect between domestic targets and export production.** Norway has set a domestic emissions cut target, yet continues to license new oil and gas exploration. Australia's net-zero plan sits alongside ongoing coal mine expansions. Countries cannot credibly claim climate leadership while still building the export infrastructure of the next decade.
Why this matters
A net-zero pledge without a production cap is a deferral, not a plan. Investors read the gap and keep buying fossil assets. Continued interest in Queensland coal holdings tells you how the market interpreted Glasgow: years of profit still on the table, with climate liability priced as negligible.
For readers tracking how policy shapes real-world outcomes, the lesson is straightforward. Watch the pipeline, not the press release. A new announcement about a 2030 or 2050 target is only as credible as the projects still being approved this quarter.
Who should care about these loopholes
| Group | Why the loopholes matter |
|---|---|
| Investors | Asset valuations assume decades of continued production; production caps would strand fossil fuel holdings |
| Voters in fossil fuel regions | Loopholes delay the transition timeline; early planning matters more than later disruption |
| Environmental advocates | Pledges without production limits achieve less than the rhetoric suggests |
| Employees in energy sector | Greenwashing masks which companies are actually preparing for a post-fossil future |
Decision filter: separating signal from noise
Use this checklist to evaluate any net-zero pledge:
- Check for production targets, not just emissions intensity targets.** "Net-zero by 2050" without a coal, oil, or gas cap is incomplete.
- Compare recent project approvals to announced targets.** Approval of a new gas field in the same year as a net-zero pledge is a red flag.
- Scrutinize offset-heavy roadmaps.** Hard-to-abate sectors may legitimately rely on offsets; easy-to-cut fossil production should not.
- Follow the money.** Voluntary alliances that still include banks funding fossil expansion are useful, but their membership lists are the real test.
Bottom line
COP26 advanced the conversation but left the production side of the fossil fuel economy largely untouched. Until subsidies shrink, new projects are rejected, offsets stop replacing real cuts, industry influence is curbed, and export strategy matches domestic targets, the loopholes will keep doing the work that the pledges were supposed to do. Watch what gets built, not what gets signed.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main criticism of the COP26 agreement on fossil fuels?
That the Glasgow text contained multiple loopholes, from ongoing subsidies to continued approval of new extraction projects, which let fossil fuel production continue even as emissions pledges grew.
Which major countries did not join the COP26 methane pledge?
Russia, China, and Australia were among the largest methane emitters that did not register for the pledge.
Did COP26 ban new fossil fuel projects?
No. The summit did not include a clear ban on new coal, oil, or gas projects, leaving individual governments free to keep approving extraction.
How much do governments still subsidise fossil fuels?
Roughly $11 million in fossil fuel subsidies every minute worldwide, a figure that dwarfs the voluntary finance commitments made at Glasgow.
Can carbon offsets replace real emissions cuts?
Offsets have a role in hard-to-abate sectors like aviation, but using them to justify ongoing fossil fuel production lets companies appear green without reducing actual output.