Category: Previous Issues

Today it’s civil society day here at COP27. And today, thousands of people are still in jail for daring to speak out for human rights, democracy and environmental integrity. ECO has been reminding our dear readers that climate is a human rights issue, and that there is no climate justice without social justice.

Since COP has started, civil society observers have never felt so popular: innumerable local staff members have been taking pictures and videos of us, of our phone and laptop screens. Some observers have been randomly stopped at the entrance… they thought it was for an autograph but instead it was to get their bag checked!

And while this constant level of control is unacceptable for a UN meeting, they offer only a mild insight into the struggle our sisters and brothers go through every day, when basic rights like the freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly are not upheld.

Last week, a huge march happened within the COP premises. There was high energy and solidarity, but ECO cannot help but regret that this happened within well protected walls, far from the streets where people are living first hand what it means to have their political and civil rights heavily limited.
... Read more ...

ECO loves multilateralism, but sometimes it feels a bit like Parties are spoiled children that never get told off. To review Parties’ cooperative approaches under article 6.2, Parties are currently proposing that the review process shall be “facilitative, [non-intrusive,] non-punitive, respectful of national sovereignty and avoid placing undue burden on participating Parties”.

With all those caveats, ECO wonders what the point is of even having a review. Especially since some Parties are also fighting to keep the right to designate any information as “confidential”, as ECO highlighted yesterday.

Do you know what *is* intrusive, punitive and places a major burden on Parties? Climate change. And it’s time that the UNFCCC process starts setting up rules that can bite and have real impact. We don’t need another facilitative and non-punitive exchange between experts and Parties. We need a stringent review that will verify whether Parties who trade mitigation outcomes are actually delivering real impact, or just trading hot air and patting themselves on the back for it.

Information under article 6 should be public, complete, and all cooperative approaches must deliver real climate action. A strict review process needs to be established to deliver this.

For all their faults, the CDM, the 6.4 mechanism, and even the voluntary carbon markets do require independent and binding checks of the mitigation activities that lead to the generation of tradable units.
... Read more ...

ECO fails to understand why is it that humans, as rational and self-interested creatures, want to continue to dig and drill in the ground for energy when the most abundant and economically sound choices are available above the ground, for free, and come with myriad benefits.
A decade or so back, fossil fuels made some economic sense because the levelized cost of energy from fossil fuel sources was significantly cheaper than renewables. But now, especially for wind and solar, the cost is on par or even cheaper than fossils, and that’s before we look at the social costs and impacts they have on our health, well-being, and most importantly our climate. ECO is perplexed as to why countries would want to support some vested interests just want to get richer and richer at the expense of the world. 
Fossil fuel companies, including some of the world’s biggest oil and gas firms who claim to support the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming below the 1.5°C threshold, are likely to generate profits (not revenues!) of about US$250billion in 2022. Even more outrageous is that they are set to spend almost $1trillion in the next eight years on new gas and oil mining, all while being fully aware that any new investment in fossil fuels will push the world irrevocably over 1.5°C and have severe repercussions on the climate and our lives. 
... Read more ...

ECO is aware that Sharm El-Sheikh is not your best pick for seeing Egyptian antiques, but we have nonetheless found a few old monuments at the site of COP27. One of them is the huge Tomb of the Bolsonaro Government, a 300 square meter empty ruin of a kingdom that should never have been. Right nearby, the smaller Mastaba of the Amazonian Governors looks slightly more modern, but it is actually promoting very ancient ideas – such as not ending deforestation by 2030.

After hinting in Paris at zero illegal deforestation by 2020, a target that was never achieved, some Brazilian Amazon states are now not only backtracking in their pledges, but actually proposing a destruction target: reducing rainforest clear-cutting to 50% by 2035, or to 80% by 2030 in the case of heavily deforested Mato Grosso. The state of Pará is aiming at having “only” 1,300 km2 of forests destroyed every year by 2035 (nearly half the area of Cairo). The question is whether there will be anything left to cut down so far in the future.

Dear governors, ECO is confused: as a country, Brazil has already committed in Glasgow to zero deforestation by 2030. Incoming president Lula has also repeatedly said that he will strive for zero deforestation.
... Read more ...