ECO Newsletter

ECO’s worried that sleep-deprived Parties are mixing up their cappuccinos and their carbon, thinking that it’s possible to decarbonize oil and gas like we decaffeinate coffee. Wake up, wake up, wake up!

There’s no such thing as carbon-free or low-carbon fossil fuels.

We cannot decarbonize oil, gas, and coal. We need to decarbonize the economy, by ending reliance on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel producers are falling over themselves to sell their products as the cleanest dirty energy around. ECO’s not buying it. Nor are many others in this venue.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) cannot make gas green, oil clean, or coal climate-safe. CCS is not a climate solution – so we should not be baking it into our climate plans. Ample evidence demonstrates that CCS is unnecessary for the rapid emission cuts we need, unproven at scale, and unjust for communities on the frontlines of fossil fuel extraction and the buildout of carbon pipelines and CCS infrastructure. It’s no surprise that the most recent IPCC report ranked carbon capture as one of the costliest and least effective mitigation options for reducing emissions by 2030—the most critical period for avoiding further catastrophic harm.

Of course, oil and gas companies know all this.
... Read more ...

Parties and friends, did you really think ECO would let you forget that today is Biodiversity Day here at COP27? Today is about far more than minimizing the climate impacts on ecosystems (although we hope that massive species extinction might worry you, just a little bit). We are here to remind you that there is currently no pathway to 1.5°C without halting and reversing biodiversity loss NOW. We need Parties and all actors, following the example of the stewardship of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, to keep protecting nature in its amazing complexity to help us fight climate change. Sadly, some of you prefer to ignore that.

Science and traditional knowledge show us that nature is not just a nice “add-on” but essential in mitigating, helping adapt to, and preventing loss and damage from the climate crisis. Do you recognize these pillars? Of course, you do. They’ve been central to your conversations over the past 10 days, as well as the 7 years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Your Paris text, and your COP decisions (most recently in Glasgow), refer repeatedly to the importance of biodiversity, forests, the ocean and ecosystems in climate action. You say publicly that you are committed to these texts, but actions speak louder than words.
... Read more ...

Some parties seem confused about the concept of Just Transition, so ECO thought it would give them a little history lesson, in collaboration with our friends at TUNGO. In 2015 the term ‘just transition’ landed in the Paris Agreement. Firmly fixed in the preamble, Parties agreed to ‘take into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.’ This was a great win for trade unions representing workers worldwide who are affected by both the effects of climate policies as well as climate change impacts themselves.

The term ‘just transition’ was coined by labour and environmental activist Tony Mazzochi in the 1970s and has been built upon by the labour movement and trade unions ever since. The core has always been about securing workers’ rights and livelihoods and giving them a say in their changing future due to a transitioning economy.

Have Parties forgotten that after the Paris Agreement, the ILO defined the meaning of Just Transition more precisely in its ‘Just Transition Guidelines’, specifying that social dialogue (involving government, labour and employers), decent work, labour rights and social protection are key elements? With this, the ILO provided a solid framework for Parties to build just transition into further agreements and the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
... Read more ...

It’s the MWP choir and ECO is concerned that Parties are not singing in tune. Your time for rehearsal is almost over. ECO is curious to ask Parties — what is the outcome you want from the MWP? Be honest, do you want it to be a talk shop? It didn’t seem so during the High-Level Ministerial Roundtable on pre-2030 ambition when many Ministers sang to the pitch of keeping 1.5°C alive. You spoke about urgency and the need for means of implementation. We also heard about an annual report to be presented to Ministers which would then be presented to the CMA. This was music to our ears! In order to deliver the necessary reduction, the process must; lead to recommendations for implementation, make available incentives, and report on its achieved reductions. In the end, the success of the MWP must be visible on the annual synthesis report you agreed to in Glasgow (CMA para 30)! This political signal will enable you to rise up to the ambition we need for a climate safe world for all. So, what is stopping you?

We heard from Japan, Chile, Bangladesh, Argentina, the EU, UK, Bolivia, and more…that the MWP can lead to incentives and opportunities to create ambition.
... Read more ...

Three days away from the scheduled end of COP27, the cover decision that should send a strong signal to guide implementation is still out of sight. ECO has been looking for actual textual proposals but has only found a list of bullet points so far.

It was encouraging, though, to hear many Parties urge that the 1.5°C limit should be enshrined in the cover decision. Next is to convert this goal into what this means for action and decision language. ECO has your back: “to revisit and strengthen NDCs with a timeframe up to 2030, including through incorporating new and strengthened sectoral and non-carbon dioxide targets or actions, to align with 1.5°C by at least 43% aggregate reductions by 2030 over 2019 levels to be in line with equity.“

And while that list of topics was quite long, some absolutely critical elements were notably absent or pretty incomplete. So, here are ECO’s top three suggestions to include (more clearly):

First, establish a Loss and Damage finance facility at this COP.
Second, agree on a roadmap for doubling adaptation finance by 2025 including timebound tracking, ensuring $100bn a year in climate finance on average over 2020-2025 as committed to in 2009/2015.

Third, initiate financial system transformation.
... Read more ...

Annually, for the past 18 years, Germanwatch, New Climate Institute and CAN International have released the CCPI at the COP. ECO appreciates the wide participatory process of 450 experts from the 59 countries and the EU, representing more than 90% of all GHG emissions.

CCPI looks at four indicators, each of which has a set of sub-indicators, when rating a country’s performance: (1) GHG emissions (per capita) and trends (40% of the rating using 2021 data); (2) Renewable Energy; (3) Energy Consumption (efficiency); and (4) National Climate Policy (data for 2022 and which each represent 20% of the overall rating).

ECO notes that much like in last year’s assessment, no country raised climate ambition progressively enough to be ranked between 1 and 3. Basically, countries did not perform well in ANY of the categories the CCPI considers in awarding the highest rankings of countries.

Denmark and Sweden are at the top (4th and 5th). The European Union is only 19th, while several developing countries scored better, like Chile (6), India (8), Morocco (7), and the Philippines (12). The biggest surprises this year were: Estonia, jumping up 23 places (9), Belgium +10 (39), the Philippines +11, France -11 (28), Thailand -11 (42), and China -13 (51), which is now in the red zone thanks to its worsening coal addiction.
... Read more ...

In the corridors of COP27, ECO has heard loud and clear (even over the noise of the aircon) the repeated calls to reform the International Financial Institutions and for more finance from public development banks to fund the energy transition. Prime Minister Mottley, Al Gore, and the V20 are just some of the voices calling for the need to reshape the international financial system to respond to the climate crisis. The need for more concessional finance and more grant-based finance to kickstart a just transition in many Global South countries has been heard again and again.

Meanwhile, billions of dollars (even more than the cost of a hotel room in Sharm for a COP27 delegate) have continued to flow from the MDBs to fossil fuels. Between 2019 and 2020 US$55billionn per year flowed from MDBs to fossil fuels, while clean energy only received US$29bn per year.

The MDBs’ Paris Agreement alignment methodology includes only a full exclusion for burning thermal coal and peat. But the door remains open to oil, fossil gas and other fossil fuels which are considered on a case-by-case basis and with restrictions. As it is at COP27, gas is the ‘elephant in the joint-MDB room’ with many MDBs considering it a ‘transition fuel’.
... Read more ...

The Santiago Network is the proposed catalyst for delivering technical assistance to the countries and communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. If there is one thing that is clear following week one at COP27, it is that no one is in denial about the scale of the need, and the fact that we need new and additional resources to confront this problem. But it’s not just about resourcing, it’s also about how these resources are applied—and the best possible technical expertise must be mobilized to respond to this growing challenge. This is in the form of technical skills, as well as in local competency: those community scale organizations who understand the local issues, but that are all too often overlooked in global processes and international funding calls.

As new draft text arrives, ECO has noticed some progress. We have text, but sadly this text has three major shortcomings. First, where are Human Rights? The Santiago Network needs to operate on human rights principles and these should be enshrined as a central precept upon which the entire network, including the advisory board and the secretariat, operates. Second, where is the environment? Why are the Environmental NGOs not included in the membership of the advisory board?
... Read more ...