Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

ECO thinks there is quite enough to be dealing with at the moment without adding in non-things. So, we are getting tired of increasingly hearing that the US is pushing for specific language excluding liability and compensation behind the scenes, making it easy for other countries that want the same to play the silent partner.

Let’s rewind a bit. In a loss and damage special edition of ECO last June, we supported LDC’s calls for compensation language in the text. However, in a laudable response to concerns expressed by the US and other developed countries about this language—and in a powerful display of unity—the G77 agreed to remove this language from the text.

That really should have been the end of the story. Rather than seeing it as the constructive bridging proposal that it was, the EU stonewalled; others stayed silent, while the US, having wanted to exclude the text entirely, is now pushing for specific language in the text to exclude compensation and liability.

Are there legal reasons to do this? ECO says no. The lack of reference to compensation in both the bridging proposal and compilation text means, well, no reference to compensation. The language, with its talk of exploration and approaches, is far from anything that could be relied on to establish liability on a legal basis.

ECO understands that the rich, polluting countries are not keen to put money on the table to help vulnerable, developing countries affected by climate change. ECO heard of a very attractive mechanism that could lower their bill–let the industry most responsible for climate change pay for the damage their product is causing.

Fossil fuels are responsible for roughly 70% of emissions. Just two of the biggest fossil fuel companies–Chevron and ExxonMobil–made US$50 billion in profit last year.  Coincidentally, that’s probably how much loss and damage LDCs are facing right now.

Collectively, all vulnerable countries face $100 billion in loss and damage, the same as the annual profits of the top 13 fossil fuel companies. On top of these obscene profits, Chevron is planning to spend $35 billion exploring for new, completely unnecessary sources of fossil fuels.

Idea: make the fossil fuel industry pay a levy into the loss and damage mechanism. Problem solved.

You won’t solve climate change without forests. But, amid all the potential to address climate change from the land, we need to watch our step.

Land is not only about forests and mitigation. It’s where food is grown, homes are built, cultures are rooted, water cycles are nurtured, and where biodiversity works its magic. ECO takes a deep, calming breath, visualises waterfalls, diverse forests and birdsong. Ahh…

Among exciting whispers of growing climate ambition, ECO wants to make sure that the lovely land that we all rely on is not accidentally trampled on in the rush to stay below 1.5°C. Climate approaches that would leave communities landless and nations hungry–for example by afforesting over hundreds of millions of hectares of African farmland–would undermine the purpose of the whole UNFCCC.

ECO reminds Parties that we need to watch our step when it comes to land.  There hasn’t been much time this week to talk about this properly.

Fortunately, lots of good work on land has been done in other relevant international processes. We need a mandate in the decision text to develop principles and establish guidelines to ensure that actions in the land sector are in line with all relevant obligations, rights and best practices, and that mitigation supports, rather than undermines, key obligations and social protections.

‘[Monday’s] first place Fossil of the Day Award goes, once again, to Saudi Arabia! In the high-level Ministerial discussions Ali al-Naimi the Saudi Oil Minister (come again?) said we cannot discriminate between clean and dirty fuels, a statement that fundamentally undermines what everyone is trying to achieve at the Paris Climate Summit.

This statement totally ignores the science that says we have to keep 2/3rds of fossil fuels in the ground to prevent catastrophic climate change and fails to acknowledge the reasons for the shift to renewable energy that is happening around the world. The Saudi’s have attempted to block a meaningful long term goal that could serve as a guiding light for the fossil fuel phase out and a shift to 100% renewable energy for all. On top of all this Saudi Arabia pushed back on a 1.5°C degree temperature target – despite the climate impacts already being felt across the region.

On a positive note we have a Ray of the Day to award to the Philippines for taking the stage during today’s Ministerial statements, soon after Saudi Arabia, to promote a meaningful long term goal to stabilise global temperatures and to to decarbonise our economies. Strong stuff, well done!

Dear Ministers: Welcome to Paris. As you have no doubt already seen, negotiating texts have been prepared for you. A bit chaotic perhaps, but good enough, and all the options are on the table.

You also have probably realized that two very different deals could be assembled out of these options. The first deal might be called the no-regrets deal. That’s the deal that allows all of us to leave Paris with a fighting chance to keep warming to 1.5°C.

The other deal that could be pieced together out of these options is often referred to here in the hallways of Le Bourget as the ‘minimalist deal’. But it might be more accurately called the 3-degrees deal.

ECO wants to make sure you leave COP21 with zero regrets, content and with the knowledge that you have done your utmost to deliver an ambitious and equitable outcome that addresses the needs of the most vulnerable.

There are many tell-tales for recognizing the 3-degrees deal. The most telling point might be the proposal that we don’t return to the table to assess our progress and ramp up ambition until 2024.

Last week’s Joint Contact Group (JCG) on the 2013-2015 review failed to come to a single conclusion on its three year work, which had included the ‘Structured Expert Dialogue’ (SED). SED’s findings were: 1)We are not on track to a ‘below 2°C path’. 2) 2°C warming would be dangerous. 3) Keeping warming to below 1.5°C would avoid many disastrous impacts.

ECO points to the need to include the 1.5 degree goal in the new agreement based on common but differentiated responsibilities and strong financial support and technical assistance to developing countries. We are also seeing intriguing shifts. The EU said in SBI last Friday that limiting warming to 2 degrees is not enough for vulnerable countries. Germany, France, Italy and Australia have announced in the last days that they want a 1.5° goal to be included in the agreement.

Article 3.3 of the Convention requires precautionary measures, and ‘where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason’ not to act. So let’s act! Over to the COP President to take the results of these excellent three years of intensive work and make the conclusions public and official to the COP.