Category: Previous Issues Articles

ECO would like to offer some observations on the cover texts and suggestions for how they can better reflect the desperate urgency for action that is needed. The texts fail to reflect the urgency being called for by the people of the world, especially those already suffering the impacts of climate change.

The texts remain worryingly unbalanced between the issues. Whereas ECO is pleased to see many mitigation elements and details on operationalizing these elements – ECO wonders whether Parties misunderstood that we are in fact experiencing increasing climate impacts as we currently move on an uncertain temperature pathway. So then if climate mitigation is not the only solution to the climate emergency – Parties should also want to address Loss and Damage Finance and Adaptation in equally detailed ways as the mitigation section! 

There is a need for more clarity on how the solidarity elements around loss and damage finance, adaptation and finance more generally are to be mobilized in time and in sufficient quantity to address existing and future needs of developing countries.

Greater precision is needed so the world can hold Parties to account, including clear time bound processes and outcomes rather, than generalized calls for more action.
... Read more ...

ECO’s sources tell us it is increasingly likely that California will be joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) at today’s official Alliance launch as an inaugural associate (second-tier) member. If true, ECO warmly congratulates California on this important development. Since the last COP, California Governor Gavin Newsom has pledged to ban fracking by 2024 and to study the phase-out of oil and gas production by 2045. Most recently, Newsom announced the nation’s largest state-wide setback distance between oil and gas wells and communities.  

These important steps will have helped earn California’s associate membership status in BOGA. However, even with partial BOGA membership, the climate emergency demands that Newsom and California do more to phase-out oil and gas production faster. ECO urges the state to join BOGA as a full member, and do what science and justice demand. 

Behind its green image, California has a dirty secret: It’s the 7^th largest oil producing state in the U.S. What’s more, the oil produced in California is some of the filthiest and most climate-damaging in the world, devastating to both public health and the climate.  

The landmark setback proposal announced last month is a long overdue sign of hope for the millions of Californians who live within one kilometer of an oil or gas well.
... Read more ...

As ECO has already explained, the GST is the guardian of the Paris Agreement. It is about protecting people and ecosystems from climate change impacts, and it’s about saving lives, cultures, and livelihoods. Yet looking at the draft COP cover text, you would hardly know that Glasgow is the moment that will kickstart the first Global Stocktake – it’s tucked away at the end of the CMA decision. 

This process requires a lot of work for Parties, but also for all the constituencies of the UNFCCC, who are invited to be part of the discussions, submit inputs and coordinate. ECO knows that civil society is ready to engage in the work to be done so that the GST is a real technical and political success.

However, that effort will need support to achieve success. The first submission phase will start soon and is expected to finish by February 2022.  As such, all constituencies are expected to submit reports, data and inputs for the GST by this deadline, and should ideally consolidate a submission with summaries of the main inputs of their members. English language is required of course, but to ensure inclusivity, all UN languages should be accepted. But ECO is concerned that meeting these deadlines will be hard to achieve. 
... Read more ...

Over the last decades, many ECO contributors have worked behind the scenes to influence important international energy organisations, or openly campaigning against them. This year, the International Energy Agency, arguably the most influential energy agency globally, has thankfully changed sides. 

In two reports this year, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, and the World Energy Outlook 2021, the IEA showed strong evidence that the world can go to literally zero emissions in the energy sector by 2050. Standing up against its former allies in the fossil fuel sectors and aligned governments, the IEA recommended that all new investments in fossil fuels have to stop – now. The IEA further suggests a very high deployment of solar and wind at more than 70% of all energy used eventually; along with a tripling of annual energy efficiency globally across all economic sectors.

The IEA used the IPCC-defined yardstick of a remaining carbon budget of about 500 Gt CO2 and applied that to its analysis, while rejecting offsets beyond boundaries of the energy sector. The IEA scenario projection lands at about 1.4°C above pre-industrial temperatures.

ECO is very pleased to see that the IEA-proposed measures and policies, laid out in detail with milestones, will lead to almost 50% CO2 reduction by 2030 worldwide while focusing the strongest actions on rich and developed countries.
... Read more ...

The fossil fuel industry must have been nervous about this COP, since it brought a delegation larger than any single countries. But it also has a backup plan, just in case, parties get serious about cutting back on fossil fuels: plastic. While transportation fuel demand is flat, plastic production is growing at 4% per year; with ExxonMobil and others investing billions in new and expanded facilities to produce ever-increasing quantities of plastic. Oil and gas provide both the feedstock and the energy source for plastic production, giving it an enormous carbon footprint. If plastic were a country, it would rank 5th in GHG emissions, right between Russia and Indonesia. While parties rightly focus on reducing fossil fuel consumption and deforestation, they’re letting increased plastic production slip under the radar. An analysis of 99 revised NDCs by GAIA, found only 11 that entertained any measures to restrict plastic. Meanwhile, the plastics industry is selling pipedreams of “carbon neutral plastic” through a mix of offsetting, greenwashing, and technologies that don’t even exist. Plastic is carbon, after all, and needs to be zeroed out along with the rest of fossil fuels.

The world is getting closer than ever to a global fossil fuel phase-out.  So ECO is crossing its fingers in the hope that COP26 will conclude with a call for a coal phase-out and a global end to fossil fuel subsidies. To tackle climate change we need a rapid phase out of fossil fuels and sustainable energy solutions. This is why ECO is so fond of renewable energy, particularly when coupled with energy efficiency. There are a wealth of solutions that are fast to implement, affordable, sustainable, and that can provide sustainable energy access to all.

ECO calls upon all countries to include in their climate plans a transition to renewable energy, in a sustainable and energy efficient manner. The good news is that renewable energy resources are distributed around the globe, and several studies show that all countries can be fully supplied with renewable energy, enabling energy access for all.  

All over the world, civil society is ready to take part in the transition process so that solutions and ways of implementation are adapted to local needs. All technologies, including renewable energy, can be misused and poorly planned projects can create local problems. But with locally directed choices, including many small solutions that are often missed, a real, sustainable transition is possible.
... Read more ...

ECO is concerned that amongst all the climate solutions that are presented at COP26 there are promoters who are queuing up to receive climate finance for proposed technologies that create at least as many problems as they attempt to solve. 

At COP26, the very visible promoters of nuclear power and their industry backers, are somehow forgetting to mention that nuclear is much slower to implement than sustainable renewable energies, much more costly and uses a hugely unsustainable amount of water, often from sources that could be used as drinking water, cleaning water and/or for agricultural purposes.  The technology is unsafe and there’s also the still unsolved problem of radioactive waste. Funding spent on nuclear power is money that slows down climate action. Building nuclear power puts countries in debt for decades, and the costs of accidents are not even in the budget. Faster and stronger emissions reductions will be realized if the same money were spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Unsustainable biomass use is another problematic ‘solution’ that can increase climate change while also creating many local problems, and harming populations and nature around the world. This includes much of liquid biomass that is blended into transport fuels, as well as large scale biomass that’s imported into countries that want a quick fix for replacing coal use.

The Indigenous Peoples Caucus has been working around the clock these past two weeks to advance text on Article 6, climate finance, gender, and mechanisms that support a rights-based framework. However, as we move towards the final days of the COP26, and many of the negotiation tables are asserting their final positions, some in civil society have switched their focus to influencing the Cover Decision.

So can the Cover Decision be a saving grace for inclusion of our rights, or is it merely a glossy Cover Up over a COP that has already failed communities on the frontlines?

With real opportunities on negotiation items dwindling, for some, the Cover Decision has become a final glimmer of hope, where civil society may be able to find a home for strong human rights language, commitments to cutting fossil fuel extraction, and other essential demands that have thus far failed to materialise at COP26. The Indigenous Peoples Caucus maintains that inclusion in the Cover Decisions is better than no inclusion at all, but we know that even the strongest and most justice-focused Cover Decision risks merely window-dressing a failed COP if we give up advocating for our rights to be included elsewhere. 

For Indigenous Peoples, the Cover Decision must center a rights-based approach that uplifts the distinct rights of Indigenous Peoples and remains in line with the minimum standards of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
... Read more ...