Good COP or bad COP? | The Aston Angle

Jan 7, 2022

6 min

Patricia ThornleyDr Prasanta DeyJun Du



Four Aston University experts reflect on COP26 and what it means for transport, community and global action on decarbonisation, support for small businesses and China’s coal consumption.


COP26 was the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference held in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021. The participating 197 countries agreed a new deal, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, aimed at staving off dangerous climate change. But will it be enough?


Dr Lucy Rackcliff explains why replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones alone is not radical enough.


The overwhelming message coming from COP26 transport day seemed to be that moving to zero emission-vehicles would solve the well-documented issues created by petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. As noted at the conference itself, transport is responsible for 10% of global emissions, and emissions from transport continue to increase.


The WHO estimates that transport-related air pollution affects the health of tens of thousands of people every year in the WHO European Region alone. However, on-street pollution is not the only effect we should seek to address.


Transport is responsible (directly or indirectly) for a wider range of environmental issues, and a wider range of health impacts. Moving to electric vehicles will not address impacts such as loss of land for other activities, use of finite resources in the manufacturing process, the need to dispose of obsolete materials such as used tyres, and the health effects of sedentary lifestyles, facilitated by car-use.


In urban areas in particular, re-thinking policy to focus on walking, cycling and public transport-use could free up land for other activities. Car parks could become actual parks, in turn encouraging more active lifestyles, creating space for people and plants, and leading to a range of wider societal benefits.


Assuming that replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones will solve all our problems is a strategy which lacks ambition, and thus denies us the benefits that more radical thinking could deliver.


Dr Lucy Rackcliff, Senior Teaching Fellow, Engineering Systems & Supply Chain Management, Aston Logistics and Systems Institute, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences.


"Assuming that replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones will solve all our problems is a strategy which lacks ambition."


Professor Patricia Thornley reflects on the role that Aston University and EBRI can play in empowering community action and informing global action with research.


COP26 energy day was a fabulous experience. I have never before seen so many people in one place with one ambition: to support and accelerate decarbonisation of the UK’s energy systems.


We ran a “fishbowl”, which allows people with different perspectives on a topic (experts and non-experts) to participate in dialogue around a common interest. Our researchers, local government representatives, industrialists and students shared their thoughts on what our future energy mix should look like, how it should be delivered and who needs to act. Without doubt the consensus was that many different technologies have a role to play and there is an urgent need to accelerate implementation. There were reflections on the importance of governance at different levels and an interesting discussion around the relative merits of centralized solutions and devolved actions. The reality is that of course we need both and that made me think about what Aston University and EBRI can do.


Of course we should implement centrally with initiatives like the impressively low carbon Students’ Union building, but we also need to raise awareness among our students. Our film showing with the Students’ Union a week later helped with that I hope, and many more of our courses are incorporating sustainability elements which is fantastic. But what we haven’t quite achieved yet is an empowered, proactive voice that would lead to wider community action. There are pockets of excellence but a lot still to be done.


My second week at COP26 was very different with police presence outside a building where I had three meetings with industrialists on the controversial topics of forestry and land-use. It was sad to be working with key players to improve sustainability and increase carbon reductions through UK bioenergy while listening to drumbeats outside from objecting protestors. There is a real lack of understanding around forest management and global land use and we need to work harder to improve that. It is a huge challenge, but one that EBRI will work hard to address.


Professor Patricia Thornley, Director of EBRI, Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute (EBRI), College of Engineering and Physical Sciences.


"There is a real lack of understanding around forest management and global land use and we need to work harder to improve that."


Professor Presanta Dey explores whether Government pledges on climate change will translate to practical support for small businesses


Following the COP26 climate change summit, the UK Government led the way in making a series of pledges and policy commitments to combat climate change. The question is: how will this translate to practical support for SMEs?


Large corporations often take centre stage at COP, which is welcomed, but if we are to see real change, everyone needs to be involved. COP26 provided a refreshing voice for UK small businesses which featured panel discussions on the ‘SME Climate Hub’, highlighting net zero opportunities and challenges for SMEs.


The momentum of COP26 has already inspired over 2,000 UK small businesses to sign up to the UN's Race to Zero campaign, which is designed to accelerate the adoption of credible net-zero targets. A long journey ahead still awaits us, however campaigns like these will hopefully start a ripple effect inspiring the remaining six million UK SMEs to take climate action.


Small businesses have been crying out for more assistance from the government in the form of ‘green’ grants and financial support to enable them to make the necessary long-term changes. The timely announcement of HSBC’s £500m Green SME Fund at COP26 marks a promising first step towards making it easier for SMEs to fund their green ambitions.


In summary, COP26 provided some comfort to UK SMEs seeking a higher level of commitment from government, financial services and businesses. This moment must act as a catalyst for policy makers to continue removing the barriers that are holding small businesses back.


Professor Presanta Dey, Professor of Operations & Information Management, College of Business and Social Sciences.


Professor Jun Du explains what China’s deal means for the rest of the world following its own energy crisis earlier this year…


Despite the many disappointments expressed around the COP26 outcomes, important progess has been made for the world economy moving towards carbon neutrality. Among the noticeable achievements China and the US, which together emit 43% of the total CO2 in the air, have agreed to boost climate co-operation despite many disagreements. This includes China’s pledge to more actively control and cut methane emissions during the next decade - even when the country did not sign up to the global methane pledge made in Glasgow.


Reaching net zero will be an unprecedented challenge for all countries. China will need to do the heaviest lifting among all. The country’s energy crisis earlier this year has shown just how hard it will be to reach net zero. The exceptionally early and cold winter this year will demand even more coal, so China’s willingness and resolve for climate commitments are good news to all.


While lots of attention was turned to the absence of China’s president, Xi Jinping, from the COP26 climate summit, what is less appreciated is the fact that China is serious about decarbonisation. Few countries invest as much as China in that area, nor grow as fast in finding alternative energy to coal and in green industries like electric cars. China has set specific plans in its 14th national five-year plan for economic and social development to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060.


COP26 could be an additional driver for “an era of accountability” for China.


Professor Jun Du, Professor of Economics, Finance and Entrepreneurship, Centre Director, Centre for Business Prosperity, Aston Business School levy.


Connect with:
Patricia Thornley

Patricia Thornley

Professor and Chief Scientific Adviser

Patricia works in sustainable fuels - improving the environmental impact of transport and energy systems.

TransportEnergySustainabilityAviationMaritime
Dr Prasanta Dey

Dr Prasanta Dey

Professor in Operations and Information Management

Dr Dey specializes in low carbon supply chain management and project management.

Environmental ManagementTotal Quality ManagementService Operations ManagementProject ManagementSupply Chain Management
Jun Du

Jun Du

Professor of Economics

Professor Du's main research interest is to understand the driving forces and impediments of productivity enhancement and economic growth.

EconomicsTrade
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts