Category: Previous Issues Articles

Dear Japan, France, Germany and South Korea: is that soot on your face?

What’s in your wallet? ECO took a quick look and started coughing from the coal soot in there! A healthy ECO was very happy last week to hear parties in Bonn calling for a phase out of fossil fuel emissions by 2050. News that China and the US were tackling their coal emissions today, makes the coughing version of ECO is very worried. We’re worried we can’t reach that goal until countries put their money where their mouth is, and stop spending public money on coal.This is a waste of scarce resources that could be more wisely spent on renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) projects, particularly in developing countries.

What a dirty waste it has been! Over the past six years, Export Credit Agencies (ECA) in OECD countries provided at least US$32 billion for coal projects abroad. The good news is that some countries are starting to worry about their laundry bills and are beginning to clean up their act. For example, last year, the United States set a new policy to phase out its international public finance for coal.

Next week, at the OECD meeting, governments have a chance to decide to move towards ending ECA financing for coal.
... Read more ...

There is a rumour that developing countries are puzzling over how to build confidence and trust for the Lima and Paris COPs. See below for a few great ideas.

At least $US15 billion, and pledges no later than November: that’s what the Green Climate Fund (GCF) bank account balance should read, and what developing countries need. Parties also made it clear that these pledges should be in addition to overall levels of climate finance and overseas development assistance. ECO does not want to have to write about how developed countries have stolen  money from education and health programs or from the Adaptation Fund, just to fill the GCF.

Finance must and will go up, not down: is another key take away from the ADP discussions. ECO is excited that countries do intend to abide by the Warsaw decision (the main reason why we walked back into these negotiations, Volveremos) to scale up public finance levels.

P.S, to the US: ECO sends its warm regards for reassuring parties using ECO language (finance is going up not down, and there is no falling off a finance cliff, etc).

P.P.S. to all developed countries: this reassurance now needs to translate into concrete commitments and provisions in the 2015 agreement.
... Read more ...

Ministers failed to deliver climate action on Thursday and Friday, and the planet treated us to stifling heat yesterday in Bonn. Fortunately, a cooling breeze from Mexico has reached ECO to remind us that the warming can be stopped and that the heat in Bonn (and in the UNFCCC negotiations) can be reversed.

This breeze started off a few months ago in Mexico, as the government there published its Climate Change Special Program 2014-2018 that commits to unilaterally reduce emissions by 90 MT CO2e by 2018. Additionally, a 2018 Renewable Energy Special Program was agreed to, which sets a goal of increasing renewable energy’s share of electricity generation from the present 15% to 25% in 2018 and 35% in 2024. These renewable power increases would be coming from wind and solar.

Based on energy demand projections, this target actually represents a doubling of present renewable energy generation to 80 TWh per year. The monopolised electricity grid is opening up to more clean and distributed power by independent producers, and provides options for customers to specifically purchase renewables. There is a whisper floating around that there is more of this to come, and it must, especially if funding from the Green Climate Fund is made available to Mexico and if energy reforms are implemented sustainably.
... Read more ...

Everyone, please give the Australian delegation a big hug – they just tripled their emissions reduction target! And they didn’t even know it.

Thanks to the Clean Energy Act (2011) that is still law, and the wonderful impact of the carbon price over the past year, Australia’s total emissions default target has just kicked into auto-pilot and sent them on a new trajectory that will cut their emissions in 2020 by 18.8% below 2000 levels.

The Aussies are a bit “shy”about this new rise in ambition, but at ECO, we think they deserve a thank you. Spread the word and shout it loud, Australia’s heading for some big emissions reductions. Well, at least for the time being.

Last week at the KP ministerial meeting, ECO again heard that commitment period two (CP2) ratifications were not advancing as we had hoped. So far, among industrialised countries, only Norway has managed to finalise the process. ECO understands that the EU environment ministers are discussing this issue at their council meeting on Thursday. But now, we hear rumours that there’s a problem. Yes, Dear Reader, you guessed right: the problem is Poland.

Poland is actually trying to use the CP2 ratification process to open and re-negotiate the whole of the European Union’s 2020 climate law. You know, the one adopted back in 2008.

“It’s too mad, it can’t be true,”you say, and ECO agrees. Seriously, Poland. Stop —we’re not amused.

A 2015 deal will fail in the eyes of the world public if it does not contribute to significantly scaling up adaptation action for developing countries. Join us today for CAN’s side event to learn more about the role of loss and damage, an orphan issue in the 2015 agreement.

When: 13:15-14:45

Where: Room Solar

Developed countries: do you often wonder how you can help vulnerable countries meet the mounting costs of climate change through loss and damage, given the fiscal challenges you’re facing at home?

Vulnerable countries: do you despair that the costs of loss and damage will never be met by anyone other than those suffering the impacts?

ECO understands that the answer to both of these questions could be addressed with the one proposal. Carbon Majors, or Carbon Criminals as some like to call them, the companies most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, ought to pay a levy on their fossil fuel extraction into the Warsaw international loss and damage mechanism.

The ground breaking report released last November by Rick Heede of Climate Accountability Institute attributed 3.5% of global fossil fuel emissions, since the industrial revolution began, to Chevron’s products, 3.2% to ExxonMobil, 3.1% to Saudi Aramco, 2.5% to BP, 2.2% to Gazprom and 2.1% to Shell.  Altogether, an astounding 63% of global emissions are attributable to the coal, oil and gas extracted, and cement manufactured, by just 90 Carbon Majors.

These mammoth fossil fuel entities have made trillions in profits (Chevron, ExxonMobil and BP each made more than US$20 billion last year) whilst their products caused climate change. 
... Read more ...

Even though the Secretariat and Parties keep saying that civil society plays a critical role in the negotiations, there’s very little they’re doing to help us participate effectively. The proposed cost recovery policy for side events and exhibits is a case in point. The following is the collective response on behalf of all non-governmental observer constituencies, which offers to work with the Secretariat and Parties to find a real and sustainable solution. Why not give us more than four days and an open and participatory process to do so?

STATEMENT REGARDING COST RECOVERY POLICY ON BEHALF OF ALL OBSERVER CONSTITUENCIES

7 June 2014

On behalf of the constituencies representing business and industry, research groups, indigenous peoples organisations, environmental groups, women and gender, trade unions, local government and municipal authorities, farmers and youth, we would like to express our concern regarding the policy on cost recovery announced in the Secretariat’s information note dated June 4th. This policy threatens to undermine the quality of observer participation in the UNFCCC process. 

From its beginning, the UNFCCC has recognised the value of observer participation, most recently during Thursday’s Article 6 dialogue on public participation. Within the SBI negotiations and workshops, numerous ministerial statements and today’s discussion, the Secretariat and Parties have repeatedly acknowledged the “crucial and integral” role of observers in and the value of our contributions to this process. 
... Read more ...

ECO realised, with much dismay, that yesterday’s article on “The Visionary Few” missed the important statement by Uganda’s minister on behalf of the LDCs. We are sorry for this oversight, but were excited to hear that the LDCs are taking IPCC science as seriously as environmental NGOs when talking about their long term mitigation goal where: “Total emissions need to reach zero between 2060 and 2080. This means we need urgent actions by all countries to reduce emissions.” Thank you minister, thank you LDCs, and welcome in the club of The Visionary Few.

ECO was jumping for joy during the ADP ministerial when some of the Parties and groups echoed CAN’s call for phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and phasing in a 100% renewable energy future, as early as possible, but no later than 2050.

Phasing-out fossil fuel emissions is of fundamental importance to secure the right to zero-carbon development for all – especially for those whose lives, homes and cultures will be at existential risk even at 1.5°C warming.

ECO is sure that you, Dear Reader, agree that this goal must be met in a way that secures the rights of the world’s poorest people to water, food, health and sustainable energy access, as well as the right of countries to fulfil those. Protecting these universal sustainable development human rights is the key challenge in a world that is desperately striving to drive carbon pollution down to zero in its bid to stave off the worst climate change impacts.

ECO suggests – and we know our friends agree – that full decarbonisation must include achieving 100% renewable and affordable Energy Access for All.

Replacing current energy systems everywhere with renewables by mid-century will be ambitious and challenging. But, quite frankly, the escalating costs of runaway climate impacts mean that not doing it would be even harder, particularly for the most vulnerable.
... Read more ...