I’M surely far from the only one who finds it hard sometimes not to let scepticism overwhelm my view of what’s going on at COP26. It’s not that I don’t care about the issues that those political leaders, delegates and activists attending are trying to address – far from it.

Having been taught while growing up to have a deep-rooted respect for our natural environment and along the way nurtured a passion for the great outdoors, I find it perhaps easier than some to recognise the urgent need to deal with the catastrophic impact climate change and related problems are having on our planet and everyday lives.

As someone also privileged enough to have spent most of my adult working life travelling the world, I’ve seen first-hand what everything from drought to deforestation means to our fellow global citizens many often already impoverished, but increasingly bearing the brunt of our changing climate.

But just as such globetrotting – objectionable to some as that might be – has provided me with such searing environmental and humanitarian insights, so too has it enabled me to view the working vagaries of geopolitics leaving no illusions as to the extent to which vested interests lie at the heart of many nations’ decision making or commitment to tackle climate change – despite their claims to the contrary.

READ MORE: Seeing COP26 through the eyes of global media reveals a focus on sideshows

There’s no pleasure in pointing an accusing finger at certain countries or their leadership over such failures. Frankly, I’m also not sure how justifiable doing so is given the level of universal culpability that exists to varying degrees in failing to respond.

There’s also something rather churlish in levelling criticism at certain nations and their governments while in the same breath invoking the need for collective action and solidarity at gatherings like COP26.

But realpolitik tells no lies and makes clear that without doubt some nations have far greater shortcomings that others when it comes to taking effective action.

At best they talk a good game at gatherings like COP26, but ultimately opt to place self-interest at the heart of their policies. Perhaps the most worrying thing of all is that having failed to honour agreements or pledges there is little the rest of the international community can do to cajole or indeed force them to act.

Put another way, it’s one thing having agreements on paper, something else again to ensure they are effectively implemented, monitored or where necessary enforced.

Just how for example do you persuade the likes of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro of working for the collective global good, let alone the interests of this own people?

Earlier this week more than 100 leaders promised to end and reverse deforestation by 2030 in the first major deal of COP26.

READ MORE: Failure to act on climate change could make broadcasters such as the BBC 'irrelevant'

Brazil, where huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest have been cut down was among the signatories. Not one of these countries however detailed how the implementation of the agreement would be monitored, or what might happen if nations reneged on the promise.

Right now, Bolsonaro is the subject of more than 100 impeachment requests in Brazil’s congress. Activists themselves want the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate him for crimes against humanity over his alleged role in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

So, there you have it, Brazil signs up to a voluntary deforestation deal, but the country’s president is globally recognised as being one of the international villains of the piece. Brazilians might have had enough of Bolsonaro, not least over his handling’ of Covid-19, but no elections are on the horizon till at least next year and time as we are constantly told with regard to climate change is of the essence.

Is this the change that the world is looking for? Or will the deal agreed in Glasgow only trigger actual change as some anti-deforestation groups have said, if it’s “backed by real monitoring, enforcement and transparency”.

Call me cynical but I can’t for the life of me ever envisage Bolsonaro implementing any of those things. The same could be said for some political leaders of another signatory country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where I have seen for myself the ravages of illegal mining on one of the biggest forest environments in the world.

That’s so often the problem with resource rich countries you see, whenever they talk up pledges made over climate change, money and profits talk louder.

TAKE the oil-rich Gulf exporters for example who are also some of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. They too have pledged to cut their emissions.

Ahead of COP26 both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) committed to reaching net zero by 2060 and 2050, respectively.

Few environments are more exposed to the effects of global warming than these desert nations, but here again the devil is in the detail, with neither Riyadh or Abu Dhabi having released a detailed track of how to achieve net zero, with no short-term targets by year.

That both Saudi and UAE are undoubtedly heavily investing in clean energy is a given, but still they insist on pumping more oil to keep their economies afloat and have the financial resources to invest in these new energies.

The countries I’ve highlighted here I should stress are far from being among the worst offenders, some as we know scarcely conceal how much they disregard what the rest of the world thinks by not even showing face at the likes of COP26.

READ MORE: David Pratt: Glasgow is in dire need of TLC – not cosmetic camouflage

As I said at the start, sometimes it’s hard not to let scepticism overwhelm our view of what’s going on at COP26 but even with all it obvious flaws and shortcomings positive results still emerge.

While unfortunately the pace of progress achieved at such conferences might be set by the least willing, for now they remain the best mechanism the world currently has for tacking the challenges of climate change short of proper universal democratic governance.

The arguments in favour of our need to act now are sinking in among our fellow global citizens – albeit slowly. But even as they do and pledges are made, self-interest continues to undermine gains.

That the international community should continue to foster such pledges goes without saying. But maybe it’s time too alongside that fostering and in the name of the greater good, to bolster its collective capacity to monitor and hold to account those that renege on them.