ECO-lateral Assessment

ECO is looking forward to the exchanges during the Multilateral Assessment, which will provide a great opportunity for Parties to quiz one another on the details of their progress on implementing their targets. What’s not on the table, though, is a discussion on the adequacy of those targets itself. Which, of course, is an important concern given the substantial mitigation gap that remains relative to a 1.5°C or even 2°C trajectory.

 

ECO has solicited questions from civil society organisations for several of the Parties undergoing Multilateral Assessment today and tomorrow.
Belarus: Given that your renewable energy target is only 9% by 2030, do you really believe that the Ostrovetskaya Nuclear Power Plant is the best mitigation solution for the 21st century, rather than increasing your renewable energy target?

 

Canada: Your general statements regarding the need for a just economic transition away from fossil fuels and keeping them in the ground are well received. How do you reconcile this long-term vision, and the domestic policies you implement to achieve it with your continued domestic support of long-lived fossil infrastructure (such as new LNG, pipeline, and tanker projects) and plans to increase fossil fuel exports?

 

France: You committed to a 2020 target of 23% of renewable energy in final energy consumption. However, unlike most European countries, the slow deployment of renewable energy will make it difficult to reach your goal. You have also not yet started shutting down nuclear reactors, a necessary step to transition away from nuclear power. What measures do you intend to implement in order to remove barriers to the development of RE and fully meet your 2020 goals?

 

Kazakhstan: How do you reconcile having an Emissions Trading System, where companies can just ask for (and receive!) more allowances once they have emitted too much, with the required mitigation ambition?

 

Russian Federation: Why do you still put forward harmful technologies, like nuclear, natural gas and big hydro, as solutions to the climate crisis, while giving less attention to the massive wind and solar potential? Especially knowing you only have 1% of renewable power capacity in your energy balance?

 

United States: Given that you are currently reviewing and/or rescinding the previous administrations’ climate policies, how do you intend to achieve, let alone enhance, your mitigation ambition? Further, can you confirm your understanding that a ratchet is a device that can only be turned in one direction (hint: not down)? And, the principle of “applicable to all”, which you advocated for, should typically be understood to indeed include all countries?

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *