Category: Previous Issues Articles

During the CDM workshop held this past June, Parties heard firsthand testimony from Weni Bagama, who spoke out passionately about the impacts of the Barro Blanco CDM project — a 29 MW hydroelectric dam currently under construction on the Ngäbe indigenous territories in Panama.

Weni described how the company failed to adequately consult the affected communities, a clear violation of CDM rules and international human rights standards. Despite concerns raised regarding consultation and other human rights abuses during the validation process, the CDM executive board approved the project in January 2011.

Since then, James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, visited the affected communities to investigate the human rights abuses associated with the hydro project. In his concluding statement, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the Barro Blanco case, and clearly articulated the international human rights obligations that should apply. He further stated that this case is emblematic of the many development projects that are threatening the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples in Panama.

Barro Blanco does not stand alone.  It is one of many projects that illustrate how the CDM has failed to ensure that projects are designed, implemented and monitored in a manner that protects human rights.
... Read more ...

The First Place Fossil again goes to Australia. Withdrawing from climate action and finance for developing countries is already like a slap in the face of those suffering from the impacts of climate change. Simply expressing solidarity with the Philippines, as they did on Wednesday in the loss and damage negotiations, is not sufficient to repair the damage Australia caused.

Even worse, in the same negotiations, Australia gave a gold star performance in obtrusiveness.  Their first point was to attach conditions and list the things Australia would not broach talking about. This included objecting to rehabilitation funds – even though this is an area of work already agreed to last year.

Then Australia objected to provisions of insurance in the Convention process – even though insurance is indeed mentioned in the Convention. They insisted that the work programme on loss and damage should be ended when institutional arrangements are agreed, although many Parties have highlighted the usefulness of past work programme activities in their submissions, and a substantial discussion on the future activities has yet to happen.

Happily in contrast to Australia – the majority of other countries showed a constructive spirit. However, Japan gets a dishonorable mention for supporting Australia’s obstructive and belligerent stance.

I am an Australian. Which is quite an admission in these halls at the moment.

People keep coming up to me and asking what’s going on? Why is my government doing such terrible things on climate policy? Why are they so addicted to coal? Why are they so determined to go backwards? How can they trash their climate policies when the rest of the world is meeting here in Warsaw to try and move forward on climate? And particularly when our neighbouring countries, especially the Philippines, are suffering such devastation.

But the main question they ask me is – do the Australian people support all of this negativity and destruction?

The answer to that question is they categorically do not. The majority of Australian people do not support repealing the carbon price, trashing renewable energy support, dismantling the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and winding back support for a long-term target of reducing carbon pollution by 80% by 2050.

If you want evidence of that look no further than the story of Australia’s Climate Commission. One of the first things the new government did was shut down this publicly funded body. But within only one week, over 20,000 Australians donated to get this vital organization back on its feet.
... Read more ...

It’s not enough to cap emissions or reduce their growth. To prevent warming of 2°C or more, net emissions need to be brought to zero. This was a key message from the IPCC presentations in yesterday’s expert dialogue on the 2013-2015 review.

The IPCC concentration pathway that keeps below 2°C implies that fossil fuel emissions  must peak before 2020 and get to zero by 2070 (see IPCC WG1 Figure TS.19).  And it would have to be much faster if we don’t want to rely on negative emissions after 2070, or peak and decline doesn’t happen early enough, or we take into account “surprise factors” and feedbacks not included in the models.

On Tuesday, the International Energy Agency released their latest World Energy Outlook, again repeating their message that meeting the 2°C target (with about 50% likelihood) means that two thirds of proven fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground. Furthermore, three quarters of the world’s proven but not yet in production oil reserves will have to remain untapped – leaving no space for Arctic oil.

ECO wonders when countries will truly accept this reality – that we simply need to get rid of fossil fuel altogether, and leave vast majority

ECO found this letter in the waste bin next to Plenary 1. Can we help make this relationship work . . . ?

My dearest,

Since our winter holiday in Copenhagen, where you proposed our marriage, I feel that you have never stopped breaking your promises. All we do is talk, talk and talk some more – and yet, you still don’t get it.

You have to stop spending all your money on expensive cars and fancy jets, and start helping me and the family. This is the last straw.  I need reassurance that we have a future, that we will grow old together.

I need action rather than words. Tell me what the future will bring – you and I need a global roadmap to the 100 billion so I know you really mean what you promised. Don’t try to cheat on me; don’t make some private company fulfill your promises. It really should be all public money. Don’t forget your promise to send an immediate check for our children’s Adaptation Fund, and make sure you order that transfer to our GCF saving account by 2014. And finally, I really need you to commit at least 50% of our savings to be spent for adaptation.
... Read more ...

EU: where is your short-term mitigation ambition?

We all know that if the ambition gap is not closed or significantly narrowed by 2020, the door will close on many options to limit temperature increase to 1.5° C.

An interesting truth is that the EU has already met its 20% target for 2020 eight years ahead of schedule. Including international offset credits, European greenhouse gas emissions were actually down nearly 27% on 1990 levels in 2012!

Therefore, it is a no-regrets option to make these reductions legally binding domestically and internationally, and adopt a 40% reduction target for 2020. And the EU has a concrete opportunity to do so in the context of revising its commitments under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol before May 2014.

A key policy instrument here is the EU Emissions Trading System, the world’s first international cap-and trade system, covering nearly half of the EU’s carbon emissions. The European carbon market must be reformed quickly as it is increasingly ineffective as a tool to control pollution. It suffers from an oversupply of almost two billion emission allowances, mainly due to a record use of international offset credits, which has caused the carbon price to crash to under less than 5 Euro.
... Read more ...

Australian PM Tony Abbott said yesterday that he will cut greenhouse gases by no more than 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. This shock move would back away from Australia’s longstanding commitment to a 15% to 25% target range.

However, the PM has previously indicated that his “off the cuff” remarks can’t really be taken as gospel. Sometimes, you see, he gets carried away in the heat of the moment, and so only written statements could really be trusted as actual policy.

Obviously, it would be more than just a smidge of bad karma if Australia would walk away from the higher end of its target range at the same time as the worst ever typhoon wreaked havoc on their neighbours, the Philippines. This is particularly notable as the PM’s Coalition has endorsed the 15% to 25% range on more than one occasion – twice so far in 2013 alone.

Now let’s turn to the notion that Australia would review the conditions for moving to the 15% level because it is not “looking to make further binding commitments in the absence of very serious like binding commitments from other countries”.

ECO suggests maybe Australia should have a word with their red-white-and-blue Umbrella Group mate.
... Read more ...

Rumour has it that that Japan, the third largest economy in the world, is going to announce its new 2020 target here in Warsaw. This would be Japan’s contribution to closing the gigatonne gap, right?

But ECO is puzzled by the target number circulating in media reports. At first we thought Japan must have made a mistake on where to put the decimal point.  But it seems the number really will be one digit smaller than it should be.

In fact, if the reported number is true, Japan would be increasing its emissions above 1990 levels.  Surely it cannot be true, Japan! ECO doesn’t want to believe wild rumors and instead expects Japan will present a target that honors the name of “Cool Earth 50” — a plan the current Prime Minister originally released to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050.

The devastating catastrophe in Fukushima taught us that nuclear is not the solution for climate change. It is good to hear that nuclear is not included in the target the government is considering, but that cannot be the reason for a low target.

ECO hopes that two and a half years after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Japan finally shifts its energy development fully to renewables and takes the lead in raising the level of climate ambition.