Catégorie : Previous Issues Articles

Have you ever tried climbing out of a hole with one hand whilst digging it deeper using a giant shovel with the other? Let ECO be the first to tell you: it doesn’t work.

While GCF pledges start to finally near the US$10 billion of initial funding, new analysis out today puts these pledges in a new light. Turns out Annex II countries are spending nearly 3 times as much to support the exploration for new fossil fuel reserves…with Annex II combined support for such activities at $26.6 billion annually.

You read that right. Coming on the heels of scientific report after report telling the world that there are already some 5 times more existing fossil fuel reserves than we can afford to burn, rich coun-tries are spending billions to support making those reserves even larger…and making the carbon bubble even bigger.

Public support for fossil fuels not only goes against basic climate science, it is a waste of public money that could go towards the critical task of helping all of us climb out of our climate hole. It’s far past time countries stopped funding fossils. An obvious starting point would be to stop making our climate hole bigger by financing exploration for new fossil fuels.

Five years on from Copenhagen, we have come full circle. This week’s SBSTA negotiations on REDD+ collapsed with no outcome, ending in deadlock – or “REDDlock.” Although most Party and Observer submissions recommended further guidance on the provision of information (i.e. reporting) on how safeguards are being “addressed and respected” to ensure its “transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness”, Parties failed to come to agreement. In what was largely a developed vs developing country split, the G77 and China lined up to oppose any decision on safeguards. The Co-Chairs made a brave attempt to reach consensus on developing “indicative elements” for the summaries of information (safeguards reports) at SBSTA 44 in 2016, but were unable to bridge the divide.

The failure here in Lima is deeply disappointing. It is now unclear whether REDD+ will be able to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, or protect biodiversity and natural forests. REDD+ early movers are already developing their safeguards summaries, but without any guidance on what to include, shifting the burden to civil society to fill the void.

In the middle of widespread and growing dissatisfaction among developing countries with what can best be described as the “non-negotiating process” taking place here in Lima, there could be some encouraging developments on finance in the works.

Yesterday afternoon in the ADP, the co-chairs finally allowed Parties to see each other’s texts on the screen – a rather small step forward that makes ECO wonder what took so long.

The day also saw discussion on cooperation, support and finance; where South Africa launched a more significant initiative on behalf of the Africa Group (AG). After days of discussion on the finance and support sections, with little or no response to the many questions and challenges on process, the Africa Group put forward an alternative text for the finance section of the non-paper on elements.

ECO commends the Africa Group for this initiative, and thinks that Parties and the Co-chairs should accept the request that this text be used as a basis for negotiations on finance in the elements paper.

The paper is well-structured, concise, and covers most of the essential content on finance that needs to be in the Paris Agreement.

Some of the provisions that could make it a good starting point for negotiations on the content of the agreement include: the call for a collective quantified finance goal for the post-2020 period that includes a specific amount from public sources; consideration of a range of new sources of finance; a link to the amount of financing needed to achieve the agreed temperature goal; the need for continued scaling up beyond 2020; and primary but not exclusive responsibility of Annex I countries for providing support and finance.
... Read more ...

ECO welcomes Argentina’s early moves towards achieving 8% of its power from renewable energy sources by 2017, and 20% by 2025. Many civil society organisations and grassroots movements gathered outside Argentina’s National Congress to support renewable energy as this important bill was approved.

The bill proposes to accelerate the development of alternative sources of energy generation. In addition, it would create a Trust Fund for the Development of Renewable Energies (FODER) to support the financing of investment projects. Importantly, the fund would be backed by 50% of the money saved from importing fossil fuels.

ECO knows that the bill is not perfect, but it provides the opportunity for a festive and colourful campaign for public awareness toward a national strategy for renewable energies.

One thing remains clear: Argentina must show greater ambition in its national commitments and setting its targets for renewable energies – as they already have been promising this 8% since 2004.

Chers délégués, à quel point aimez-vous la comptabilité? Nous disposons, au maximum, de mille milliards de tonnes en plus que nous pouvons émettre, alors nous ferions mieux de commencer à compter attentivement si nous voulons éviter une situation dangereuse. Il est grand temps que les Parties sortent leurs casquettes de comptables dans le cadre de l’ADP.

Seules des exigences claires pour le contenu des INDCs rendront possible le comptage des émissions et permettront d’inclure des objectifs d’atténuation transparents, comparables, quantifiables et pluriannuels basés sur des niveaux de référence historiques. Les Parties ayant d’ores et déjà commencé à décider de leurs contributions pour l’accord de Paris, maintenant est le moment idéal pour discuter d’un cadre comptable adéquat. Un programme de travail devrait être établi dans le cadre de l’ADP afin que les pays puissent commencer à réfléchir aux règles comptables qui seront nécessaires dans le monde de l’après-2020, plus complexe et plus chaud.

Les règles comptables doivent également veiller à ce que l’utilisation des marchés internationaux du carbone, dans le cadre d’un nouvel accord, ne remette pas en cause les objectifs d’atténuation. Éviter le double comptage devient particulièrement important si les pays veulent utiliser ces marchés. Par conséquent, seuls les pays ayant un objectif d’atténuation ambitieux, bien en-dessous des scénarios prudents basés sur le statu quo et conforme à l’objectif de 2°C, doivent être admis à participer aux marchés internationaux.
... Read more ...

Today is Young and Future Generations day. YOUNGO thought we’d provide you with some simple instructions on the fight of our lifetime. You are never too old to learn and never too tired/disgruntled/bored to fight for the future.

1) We are the citizens of your countries, and we demand that you make our nationally determined contributions ambitious. We can stand to bear the responsibility of your past mistakes, but your decisions about the future need to be just and fair: these decisions affect our homes, our communities, and our lives.

2) Our life’s work will be to phase out carbon emissions to zero. Your job is simple: make the commitment to a clean and just phase out of fossil fuels, and a phase in of 100% renewables starting now and to be achieved no later than 2050.

3) Don’t discount our future and that of future generations. You consistently tell us you can’t afford it, but we know you have your sums all wrong: you are not counting on us having a future at all. Invest today, which for industrial countries includes paying your climate debts. And get the message to your finance ministries.

4) We all know that 80% of theknown reserves of oil, coal and gas have to stay in the ground.
... Read more ...

Now that the new IPCC compendium has been worked on by the world’s leading climate scientists and published for all to see: What conclusions should countries draw from it? How about the need to phase out fossil fuels ASAP, starting today?

In the next two days, a Structured Expert Dialogue will assess the adequacy of the long-term global goal (i.e. keeping global warming below 2°C), possible strengthening of the goal to 1.5°C (yes please!), and the overall progress made towards achieving the goal.

On Tuesday, IPCC experts will bring in the fresh science from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), while on Wednesday UNEP, IEA, FAO and others will present their analysis on the matter.

A realistic understanding of where we’re heading and where we should be going to avoid catastrophic impacts is fundamental for negotiating a successful deal in Paris. Therefore ECO is pleased to present this special issue on the future of our climate as assessed by the world’s review panel, the IPCC.

There are many who consider a 2°C limit for global temperature rise to be an unacceptable climate risk. For them it’s « 1.5°C to stay alive, » and the new IPCC report shows that they have a serious point.

The IPCC’s newly updated « Reasons for Concern » indicators (sometimes called « the burning embers, » refers to a chart showing increasing risk for the key indicators in yellow, orange and red colors) show that 2 or even 3 out of 5 key risks would could be at dangerous levels with 2°C warming.

The risks play out most at a regional scale, so let’s have a look at what could happen with just 2°C warming globally (recognising that warming also varies by region):

For Africa, of 9 key regional risks, 8 pose medium or higher risk with 2°C warming, even with high levels of adaptation. We’re talking fundamentals like water stress, reduced food production and the spread of diseases.

For Small Island States, highly vulnerable to sea-level rise and high-water events, and dependent on ocean ecosystems, 2°C would be a disaster.

For Asia, risks of catastrophic flooding and lethal heatwaves would be in the medium or high range even with high levels of adaptation.
... Read more ...

Ok, so we have a long-term goal of keeping global warming below 2°C/1.5°C, but what does this mean in reality? Enter the IPCC AR5 cumulative emissions budgets! This is the maximum amount of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can take before crossing these limits.

According to the AR5, after 2010 we can only emit an additional 1,000 billion tons (Gt) of CO2 into our atmosphere if we want a higher than 66% likelihood of limiting global warming to below 2°C. To keep warming below 1.5°C the remaining carbon budget is consequently smaller.

Since 2010 we have already spent about a tenth of this budget. Oops! Freezing our annual global emissions to current levels would use up the remaining budget completely in just 25 years, and almost one third of it would be gone by 2020. With current growing emissions we’ll have used up our budget even sooner.

What does it mean? It means that peaking and starting the decline in emissions soon is fundamental for achieving the long-term goal.

It also means we’re no longer in the business of managing emissions. We have to phase them out to zero, and it needs to happen fast. If you thought we had time until the end of the century, you’ve misunderstood the IPCC’s conclusions.
... Read more ...