Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

All countries questioning the urgent need to include a long-term goal to keep temperatures below 1.5°C should check their conscience.

For countries that have suffered the wrath of climate-related extreme events due to the current 1°C temperature increase, any attempt to negotiate a further increase in temperature is a violation of the right to life of many human beings and threatens the existence of ecosystems and species. Countries that have already been impacted by the hazards of climate change often do not have the time to adapt. They are therefore are at risk of loss and damage. Their realities must be reflected in the Paris Agreement.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in recognition of the risks faced by its member countries, is calling for accelerated investments in disaster risk reduction and adaptation. Support for inclusive resilience and risk management needs to be scaled up. It also needs to be sensitive to gender, culture and the needs of the most vulnerable. This is what ECO calls for in the decisions on loss and damage and adaptation for COP21.

Changes in the global climate system have already triggered enormous hazards. These have cost thousands of lives and put significant assets at risk in the most vulnerable countries.
... Read more ...

ECO understands that several Parties are trying to get the high score for the new video game CAPMAN–our cute climate superhero fighting against Hot Air villains. Today’s winners are five EU countries (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) that decided to remove hot air by cancelling 634.9 million surplus units (AAUs) from the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period. They also promised to cancel significant additional amounts from the period up to 2020. These units result from the countries overachieving their Kyoto targets. Cancelling them is a welcome contribution to pre-2020 ambition.

The Kyoto Protocol is suffering from an 11 gigatonne hot air loophole. Under the current rules, the surplus AAUs cannot be used after 2020. However, there is still a risk that the use of other out-of-date carbon units, such as carbon offsets, dilute post-2020 mitigation efforts if Parties would allow them to be carried over.

ECO hopes that, in the race of who takes the most carbon out of the game, today’s initiative will be extended to all surplus units that could harm post-2020 climate commitments. The Paris agreement should incentivise climate actions that are new, additional and not recycled from the past.

Sometimes even the most dedicated of Parties find it difficult to see the forest from the trees. Norway in particular claims to be a human rights champion, but refuses to include language in Article 2 that would protect human rights. This includes the rights of indigenous peoples, gender equality, intergenerational equity, a just transition, food security and the integrity of ecosystems.

Norway and the US claim these points have nothing to do with the purpose of the Paris Agreement. What a step back from the integrated agenda adopted in New York in September! How will governments eradicate poverty, promote social justice and tackle the climate crisis if they refuse to adopt a coherent approach?

Instead, they have suggested that human rights should not be an overarching principle. Tell us, Norway and US: which aspect of climate policy is not relevant to human rights?

ECO couldn’t be more pleased that, following Wednesday’s ‘Fossil of the Day’ award for IMO and ICAO, language on shipping and aviation emissions made it to Friday’s draft. But really, why hasn’t someone killed off that Kyoto-era reference to ‘limitation or reduction’ of their emissions? The term ‘limitation’ allows for continued emissions growth, rather than the absolute cuts needed to stay within the remaining global carbon budget.

Emission reductions are needed from both these sectors, whose emissions fall outside of INDCs, if the long term goal of the agreement is to be achieved. And we know that there are many ways to reduce their emissions without harming trade.

At present, ICAO may only address post-2020 emissions, and IMO won’t even set a target! ‘Limitation’ will give ICAO and IMO a green-light for business-as-usual.

So, negotiators–just whip out that Kyoto-era ‘limitation’ language, replace it with a clear call for IMO and ICAO to make a fair contribution to reducing emissions in line with keeping the temperature increase under 1.5°C, and request them to be part of the Article 10 global stocktake.

The Fossil of the Day Awards, as presented at last night’s ceremony:

“Today’s first Fossil of the Day Award goes to…Saudi Arabia! The Saudi delegation here in Paris is doing its best to keep a meaningful mention of the 1.5 degree global warming limit out of the agreement. The Saudi’s are trying to torpedo three years of hard science, commissioned by governments, that clearly shows 2 degrees warming is too much for vulnerable communities around the world. Saudi Arabia is fighting tooth and nail to ensure the Paris agreement basically says, “thanks, but no thanks” to 1.5 degrees warming. A dishonourable mention also goes to India and China who are also trying to sink a safer temperature target, and the Arab Group for standing silently behind Saudi Arabia – despite the fact that people in all these countries stand to suffer as a result of their actions.

Our second Fossil is a joint award that goes to three stooges, Norway, the USA and Saudi Arabia…again. These jokers are threatening the heart and soul of the transition to a renewable energy powered world we want and need. They are trying to water down essential elements of a just transition (by moving them to the preamble in the text): safeguarding human rights, increasing food security, protecting ecosystem integrity, promoting intergenerational integrity, and increasing gender security.
... Read more ...

ECO is distraught that the 2013-2015 review, which included the ‘Structured Expert Dialogue’ (SED), could not come to a conclusion after its three years of work. Saudi Arabia (speaking for the Arab Group, China and India) tried to secure agreement only on procedural conclusions, instead of the actual substance within the Joint Contact Group. What’s more, Saudi Arabia objected to the draft decision taken. This prevented the group from actually recommending appropriate actions on the key messages highlighted in the SED.

ECO also noted that this draft decision still contained many brackets: three options remained on whether the Long Term Goal should be strengthened from below a 2°C goal to 1.5°C. Not allowing a text going forward on such a substantive process and serious matter, not delivering on the mandate of the review to which everyone agreed to, is a serious signal.

Now it is up to the COP Presidency to take the result of three years of intensive work in its own hands and ensure that the SED’s conclusions are made more visible in the UNFCCC negotiations next week. ECO calls on Parties to agree to procedural conclusions and the draft decision in COP, even though they might not share the same positions on all the issues being addressed.