Category: Previous Issues Articles

Game Over For Hot Air?

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 However, there is still a risk that the use of other out-of-date carbon units, such as carbon offsets, dilute post-2020 mitigation efforts if Parties would allow them to be carried over.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.

Norway, the Human Rights Fossil

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?

“Limiting” Bunker Emissions? That’s Oh So Kyoto!

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.

Saudi Arabia Wins Big in Fossil Awards

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 ...

Lame Danes Win Fossil for Undermining Ambition

Oh, Denmark! In a not too distant past, Denmark was an inspiration to many–setting ambitious targets and rolling out renewables such as wind energy. But today we are not talking about great Danes, we are talking about lame Danes. That’s because today the Danish government is aiming to cut climate targets and shrink climate finance contributions.
The new minority Liberal government of Denmark came into power in July and clearly thought there was too much climate leadership going on. So they decided to dial it down—waaaaaay down.
As negotiators in Paris worked to deliver a durable and ambitious climate regime, Danish Minister Lars Christian Lilleholt declared his preference to scrap Denmark’s  ambitious carbon reduction target of 40% by 2020. This signalled his government’s intent to put the handbrake on Denmark’s ambition, evan as other countries around the world take the opposite approach and gear up to accelerate the transition to a renewable energy future.
While looking to cut their own ambition, the Danish government seemed to want to restrict the ambition of developing countries as well. The new government has a steady stranglehold on climate finance—squeezing the budget from an initial 500 million Danish Krone, which is around 72 million US dollars, to only a projected 39 million US dollars next year. Skammeligt!

The Not-So-Golden Ratio

What does Notre Dame de Paris have in common with the Green Climate Fund? Sadly nothing. The golden ratio, so beautifully on display in the cathedral’s architecture, is nowhere to be found when fossil fuel subsidies are compared to Green Climate Fund pledges.
Ratios have been on ECO’s mind ever since a stroll to Notre Dame. So ECO despaired when it discovered a ratio that was totally out of whack. Analysis released yesterday shows that the ratio of fossil fuel subsidies to Green Climate Fund pledges from 8 key countries is 40 to 1!
You read that right. Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States provide a total of roughly US$80 billion per year to support fossil fuel production, but have only pledged a combined total of $2 billion per year to the Green Climate Fund.
That ratio unsettling. It also pushes the climate talks in exactly the opposite direction of progress. While finance negotiators wander the halls looking for more finance to offer up, billions of dollars are being sucked away to support dirty fossil fuels.
It’s time to #StopFundingFossils and start funding the solutions!

Unstructured Indecision

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.

Integrating Integrity

There are wide ambition and resilience gaps between where we are and where we need to be to ensure a liveable world for ourselves and our descendants. There is scant room for false starts, such as project implementations that won’t deliver on their promise. Or worse, projects that do more harm than good.
How can we avoid such pitfalls? The answer lies with that special ingredient, Environmental Integrity. ECO looks at the results of some early implementations and finds much room for improvement. First, implementations must not conflate the environment with just emissions reduction, but instead consider the whole dimension of biodiversity and ecosystems. Second, they must add the social dimension.
ECO thinks that considering Environmental Integrity when devising implementations would help to solve important problems. Though some might question the meaning of ‘Environmental Integrity’, ECO suggests you  look no further than the concept’s context within bodies such as the Sustainable Development Goals and Green Climate Fund. Both embrace Environmental Integrity within their objectives and guiding principles.
For the Paris agreement, we recommend the perfect location: the inclusion of Environmental Integrity in Article 2.2 as an overarching principle. This article shows us a clear way forward. And why stop at Environmental Integrity? 

... Read more ...

Phasing Out Ambition?

Whispers echo around Le Bourget about a group of countries trying to phase out ambition in the finance text. Yes, you read it here first. As ECO was beginning to believe countries had finally caught on to the importance of phasing out financial support for dirty fossil fuels, we’re hit with an unpleasant surprise.
The key text for phasing out international support for dirty energy (which Parties call high emissions investments) has just come under fire by some countries, including Saudi Arabia and Argentina. Esteemed delegates, ECO is as shocked as you are. With the urgency of the climate crisis, can we really afford to continue fuelling the fossil fuel industry that’s driving our climate to destruction?
ECO thinks not. If Parties really want to increase climate ambition through finance, they should stand firm and commit their governments to joining the global divestment movement.

Take note Saudi Arabia, Argentina and their supporters: Governments and institutions all over the world are speeding ahead to shift financial investments away from dirty energy. So be prepared to fight off a tide of climate action.

Memo to other Parties: Keep up the fight and lead by example. Your citizens, businesses and investors will thank you for it–not to mention future generations.

We must divest from fossil fuels.

Feeding the Climate Talks

Once upon a time, ECO thought Parties recognised the impact of climate change on food security and the importance of letting people know that they might starve if they don’t address warming. Unsurprisingly (given that the IPCC’s latest report speaks to this issue), 60% of the INDCs mention ‘food security’. So, it’s disappointing for ECO to learn that while food ‘production and distribution’ has popped up in the agreement 3 times, food ‘security’ is absent from the operative text. Perhaps Parties need a refresher on the difference between food security and food production?
World Bank and FAO reports clearly state that hunger is not a problem of food quantity, but of regular access to enough nutritious food. And access is different from distribution. It refers to having sufficient resources at all time to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet whereas distribution refers to being able to transport food from one place to another. Really, Parties: emphasising ‘food production and distribution’ is so old fashioned that it’s a throwback to the 1990s.
ECO has heard rumors that the Paris Agreement can’t reference food security because it is a sector–as in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. ECO is happy to state that this is not the case.

... Read more ...