ECO Newsletter

‘[Monday’s] first place Fossil of the Day Award goes, once again, to Saudi Arabia! In the high-level Ministerial discussions Ali al-Naimi the Saudi Oil Minister (come again?) said we cannot discriminate between clean and dirty fuels, a statement that fundamentally undermines what everyone is trying to achieve at the Paris Climate Summit.

This statement totally ignores the science that says we have to keep 2/3rds of fossil fuels in the ground to prevent catastrophic climate change and fails to acknowledge the reasons for the shift to renewable energy that is happening around the world. The Saudi’s have attempted to block a meaningful long term goal that could serve as a guiding light for the fossil fuel phase out and a shift to 100% renewable energy for all. On top of all this Saudi Arabia pushed back on a 1.5°C degree temperature target – despite the climate impacts already being felt across the region.

On a positive note we have a Ray of the Day to award to the Philippines for taking the stage during today’s Ministerial statements, soon after Saudi Arabia, to promote a meaningful long term goal to stabilise global temperatures and to to decarbonise our economies. Strong stuff, well done!

Dear Ministers: Welcome to Paris. As you have no doubt already seen, negotiating texts have been prepared for you. A bit chaotic perhaps, but good enough, and all the options are on the table.

You also have probably realized that two very different deals could be assembled out of these options. The first deal might be called the no-regrets deal. That’s the deal that allows all of us to leave Paris with a fighting chance to keep warming to 1.5°C.

The other deal that could be pieced together out of these options is often referred to here in the hallways of Le Bourget as the ‘minimalist deal’. But it might be more accurately called the 3-degrees deal.

ECO wants to make sure you leave COP21 with zero regrets, content and with the knowledge that you have done your utmost to deliver an ambitious and equitable outcome that addresses the needs of the most vulnerable.

There are many tell-tales for recognizing the 3-degrees deal. The most telling point might be the proposal that we don’t return to the table to assess our progress and ramp up ambition until 2024.

Last week’s Joint Contact Group (JCG) on the 2013-2015 review failed to come to a single conclusion on its three year work, which had included the ‘Structured Expert Dialogue’ (SED). SED’s findings were: 1)We are not on track to a ‘below 2°C path’. 2) 2°C warming would be dangerous. 3) Keeping warming to below 1.5°C would avoid many disastrous impacts.

ECO points to the need to include the 1.5 degree goal in the new agreement based on common but differentiated responsibilities and strong financial support and technical assistance to developing countries. We are also seeing intriguing shifts. The EU said in SBI last Friday that limiting warming to 2 degrees is not enough for vulnerable countries. Germany, France, Italy and Australia have announced in the last days that they want a 1.5° goal to be included in the agreement.

Article 3.3 of the Convention requires precautionary measures, and ‘where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason’ not to act. So let’s act! Over to the COP President to take the results of these excellent three years of intensive work and make the conclusions public and official to the COP.

ECO is disappointed that Parties seem to have all agreed on the ‘no text’ options for the following numbers:

The emissions gap: [The emissions gap in 2020 is estimated to be 8-12 Gigatonnes] [The emissions gap in 2030 based on the current INDCs is estimated to be 12-18 Gigatonnes]

The adaptation gap: [The Adaptation finance needs alone will be USD 150 billion per annum by 2025 (even if we were on track for 2°C) yet the starting point for climate finance in 2020 is only USD 100 billion per annum]

The finance gap: [Recent analysis by the International Energy Agency finds that we need to up to $2 trillion annually worldwide by 2035 for the energy transition. This will require at least $166 billion in public finance per year]

These numbers are real, even if they do not appear in any text. Without a strong process to address these gaps, the Paris outcome will  be little more than an agreement to leave the leaders of 2030 with an insurmountable challenge. Instead, the Paris outcome could ensure that the gaps are filled:

1) Parties should agree to a five-year cycle where intended targets (for finance and mitigation) and contributions (for adaptation) are submitted well in advance of each commitment period.

Saturday was the Action Day—a big party to celebrate initiatives by non-state actors, subnational entities and national governments. While ECO would like to dance the night away with some guests that promote real solutions benefiting people and climate, like renewable energy and energy efficiency, ECO would hate to have gate crashers. That includes false solutions and greenwashing big polluters, such as Total and other members of the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership.

Companies and initiatives that are not serious about the transition to a world without fossil fuel emissions simply should not be part of the LPAA, and business as usual in any of the 12 sectors of the LPAA is not acceptable.

Initiatives should have to provide real and significant benefits, in terms of emissions reductions or enhanced resilience. They should set themselves specific and measurable commitments and be willing to follow up on them with regular reporting. ECO wants to stress that initiatives also need to respect principles such as human rights, environmental integrity, and food sovereignty. Such criteria should be enshrined not only in the LPAA, but also in the Workstream 2 decision to inform high-level events in the future. And without a bouncer (ombudsperson), it won’t be much of a party.