Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

It’s exciting to see so many Annex I Parties participating in the multilateral assessment for their biennial reports. ECO congratulates Parties for participating and thinks the multilateral assessment can be a great place to share lessons learned and experiences with other Parties in a constructive environment. We look forward to hearing your presentations and listening to the Q&A sessions throughout the day. 

Since ECO can’t ask questions during these workshops, we thought we would share our questions with you, so here they are:

To all Parties:
Can you provide an update regarding any action taken to strengthen your policy-making process – in particular in relation to public access to information and public participation – so as to improve climate responses and promote policy coherence in the context of progress made towards meeting your commitments under the UNFCCC?
Australia:
Australia’s Minister for Emissions Reductions states that the country’s growing fossil fuel LNG exports is a “substantial global contribution to be proud of,” as it led to avoided emissions of 148 MT. Can Australia say how it came up with this number for avoided emissions? Is Australia keen to change the accounting framework to take ownership for Scope 3 emissions? 
Denmark:
There is a risk that emissions from biomass combustion are not accounted for when importing from countries where forests and deforestation is not counted in their NDCs.
... Read more ...

There was some additional humour in the air last week as the below picture spread both inside and outside of the Article 6 room faster than a climate change-induced wildfire. As Parties restart their discussions on the KP transition, ECO hopes that they will remember this dam, and won’t let it crack.

If it was up to ECO, no KP credit would be used after 2020. Clearly, the “robust rules” in the below picture are not robust enough, because none of these hot air credits should be allowed to flow through to article 6.

In Doha and Marrakesh, Parties agreed to limit the transition of AAUs from the first to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Very much the same debate is taking place now. And there is no reason to suddenly change course. You know the numbers: if the dam breaks, the market will be flooded.

Young people were born into a world of climate change, pollution, loss of biodiversity and the realities of vast inequality. Generations before us knew we would have to face the consequences of climate change, yet we were excluded from the decision-making processes. Now, we must work together with all generations for intergenerational equity to get a legitimate seat at the table, demanding the protection of our future. 

In the face of the climate crisis and its catastrophic consequences, we need to be united and demand to be heard. Cooperation between generations is the key to achieving a future where life can thrive and where the rights of all people on earth are equally respected. 

We welcome and acknowledge the reports of the IPCC and IPBES, which shape our knowledge of the crisis. On the other hand, it forces us to wonder why this issue has been continually ignored by politicians who have failed to act on what we desperately need to do to mitigate the crisis. There is no choice but to act. Now. 

This is why we put our lives on hold for the climate strikes. Our strikes are as necessary as the air we breathe – this is why we are willing to sacrifice precious days of school.
... Read more ...

Intergenerational equity is reflected within the preamble of the Paris Agreement, and as such, young people are allowed to participate within the UNFCCC negotiating space. But this participation and acknowledgement has and will continue to be silenced if the presence of big polluting businesses continues within the UN climate negotiating space. 

The dominant presence of those most responsible for the climate crisis not only results in the suppression of the voices of youth, but also those of indigenous peoples, women, and other marginalised groups. To protect these groups and the integrity of the negotiations, young people believe that we desperately need a Conflicts of Interest policy. 

The well-financed, well-organised, and deliberate attempts by these big polluters to interfere in the policy making processes are very prominent here at SB50 and in the UNFCCC. So much so, that it has created a space where the irrationality of having those who profit from the climate crisis, here at the UNFCCC, is no longer coming into question.

So far in the Arrangement of Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM negotiations), where this issue could be discussed, we’ve seen non-party stakeholder contributions being pushed to later sessions and witnessed the calls for a policy on conflicts of interest by Climate Justice Now, the Women & Gender constituency, the Indigenous Peoples Organisation and YOUNGO being met with complete disregard by parties. 
... Read more ...

Education, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation, and international cooperation – collectively the six elements of Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) – form a crucial pillar for successful implementation of the Paris Agreement. ACE is vital for young people, who not only fought on behalf of Article 12, but also have a great need for empowerment in order to tackle the challenges of climate change. 

The ACE negotiations at SB50 centre around the preparation of the Terms of Reference for the final review of the Doha Work Program (DWP) on Article 6 of the Convention, which will conclude its mandate and be evaluated in 2020 at SB52. Looming beyond this review is the question of what the framework will be for ACE action following the DWP. 

Parties so far lack consensus on the scope of the final review of the DWP to consider possibilities for this post-2020 framework. It is a cause of significant concern for many, including young people, that some Parties seem reluctant to address this topic. This reluctance takes place under the guise of not wanting to prejudge future decisions under the process. Yet, there is no question that we must have a new ACE framework to succeed the DWP, and this should constitute a framework that is even more robust. 
... Read more ...

Each year, according to the WHO, air pollution results in 7 million premature deaths. Burning fossil fuels is one of the main sources of air pollution and poses an existential threat to our health. This is only one aspect of the many ways that climate change negatively impacts human health. Climate change also contributes to increased heat strokes and deaths due to extreme weather events. These effects put the viability of all of our health systems at greater risk every day. We must not forget that the ultimate objective of this convention is to protect people and the planet against the adverse effects of climate change on health and welfare.

As future medical professionals, we diagnose climate change as a medical emergency, and it must be treated that way. When someone arrives in the emergency room suffering from a life-threatening condition, you expect healthcare workers to act. Fortunately, there is a treatment available for this medical emergency: strong climate action. This includes, but is not limited to, phasing-out fossil fuels and the use of sustainable infrastructure strategies.

Addressing the root causes of climate change comes with substantial health benefits. These benefits are so significant that for some policies, they can entirely offset the costs of adaptation and mitigation.
... Read more ...

Diversity makes the United Nations great. This diversity represents people from across the globe fighting together for something better, but this beautiful diversity is under threat from climate change. Each day, crucial parts of our culture are being washed away by storms and rising seas, as people are displaced from their homes. 

As young campaigners, sitting in the mandated review of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on Loss and Damage (L&D) has left us scared. Lack of action on this issue will categorically destroy the core of that diverse cultural heritage. 

We need delegations to start taking Loss and Damage seriously. We urgently need finance for countries to rebuild after disaster(s) and displacement. Undermining real efforts to evaluate and progress on the WIM in these sessions supports the escalating climate crisis, and perpetuates cycles of under-development, inequity and poverty.  Young people in climate-vulnerable nations are the least responsible, but face a lifetime of consequences for the carbon-intensive lifestyles that adults in the Global North continue to lead. We must break this cycle. States must correct this profound injustice. 

SB50 must be the start of a new era where nations in the Global North and big polluters recognize their historical responsibility, and protect the most vulnerable and marginalized.
... Read more ...

If you are looking for common tabular formats (CTF) in this article, you are reading the wrong piece. This CTF refers to the common time frames for the implementation of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs). We knows that when it comes to common time frames, most people think it is common sense to have a five-year time frame. Why? Well, the NDCs are communicated every five years and the global stocktake takes place every five years. Nevertheless, the negotiations on common time frames (and other areas) don’t always follow common sense.

We have followed the two negotiations on CTF at the Bonn session and, just as at COP24 in Katowice, not much progress has been made. At COP 24, Parties agreed that common time frames will apply to NDCs to be implemented from 2031 onward. However, it doesn’t really address when the NDC shall be communicated. 2025 or 2030? Well, the general consensus in the room is that NDCs communicated in 2025 should be implemented from 2031 onwards.

The other crucial question on CTF’s is, when will Parties finally make a decision on this important item? Some Parties have floated the idea of finalizing this important item by 2023, which is as late as you can get.
... Read more ...

By 2050, over 1 billion people will be forcibly displaced from their homes, according to the Institute of Environment and Human Security of the United Nations University. Climate change is, and will continue to destroy infrastructure, forcing millions from their towns and cities. Yet no one is talking about climate migration. My generation will be forced to migrate on an unseen scale, yet the generation who caused the crisis fail to put protections in place to ensure our human rights and livelihoods.

This is terrifying for those living in developing countries and small island developing states. The reality is that they will be hit the hardest, but it is precisely those most affected who lack the resources of rich nations to quickly respond and adapt. 

When presented with ecosystem change, species have three potential options: they adapt, they move, or they die. Recognizing this, protecting climate migrants is of the utmost importance because when your home is gone, where do you go? For us, the answer is simple: countries with more space and resources must provide asylum and social integration. These are the same countries who have created the climate crisis, they have a historical debt to pay. But, this is a complex problem.
... Read more ...

We’re back for another session of Article 6 negotiations. ECO knows that when it comes to the game of baselines, it’s time for Parties to take heed of lessons learned from the KP and other mechanisms. Otherwise, winter is coming…

Strong environmental integrity principles are critical for the Article 6.4 rules so that parties are prevented from gaming their baselines, and instead adopt accurate and conservative baselines. Baselines should reflect a conservative emission pathway to avoid hot air and non-additional credits in the 6.4 mechanism.

Baselines should be proposed by host countries, and approved by the Supervisory Body only if they are conservative, dynamic, and standardized. Ideally, they should be set at BAU or the level of policies incorporated into a host’s NDC, whichever is lowest. Under no circumstances should baselines be set above BAU, which would lead to the issuance of hot air credits.

In practice, ECO knows that quantifying policies in an NDC — first at the scale of sectors, and then projects — is challenging, and will require technical support and capacity building.  However, it is key to the principle of additionality that baselines be set at a level which takes a conservative approach to the calculation of “what would have happened otherwise,” and that they be re-set through a dynamic updating process.
... Read more ...