ECO Newsletter

ECO has been listening to the high-level opening speeches yesterday and today with interest, and is very happy to hear several countries and leaders naming oil, gas and coal as the cause of our crisis. When the COP26 decision finally mentioned the fossil fuel elephant, it opened a door that cannot be closed.

It’s true. Digging up and burning dead rainforests is a path to disaster. Digging for oil, gas, and coal is what has gotten us into the deep hole we’re in. ECO is excited to hear these words in the High Level Segment.

But ECO has questions, and ECO has worries. Saying there’s an elephant in the room doesn’t help get the elephant out of the room if all you do is lie and say that it’s a very clean elephant.

It is worrying to hear some leaders opening this COP27 with dishonest weasel words (like “abated”) about how their oil and gas is somehow better than anyone else’s. ECO knows that burning just the oil, gas and coal in developed, operating fields and mines now will take the world beyond 2ºC, let alone 1.5ºC.

The reality is that around 80-90% of the emissions from the oil and gas supply chain come when the oil and gas is burned, not before – so when companies and countries try to distract focus onto the emissions elsewhere in the supply chain, they’re distracting attention onto only 10-20% of the climate pollution.
... Read more ...

Since delegates have been very busy preparing for the COP, they might have missed the latest scientific evidence that shows how far we are from meeting the temperature goal the world committed to in 2015, in Paris. Allow ECO, dear readers, to summarize the key findings of the UNFCCC Synthesis Report and the UNEP Emissions Gap Report, both released last week.

The Synthesis Report clearly states that compared to 2019 levels, by 2030 the current NDCs will reduce global emissions by only 3.6%.  Yes, you read that right.  It pains ECO to compare this to the 43% emissions reductions by 2030 from 2019 levels recommended by the IPCC.  Why? Because current NDCs have no plan for a staggering 39% gap of emissions reductions required. Or in other words, by 2030, current NDCs can only realize 8.37% of the emissions reductions that has been recommended by IPCC from the 2019 levels. How much our politicians listen to science? 8.37%. Yep, no kidding, 8.37%. Imagine letting a country being run by someone with an approval rating of 8.37%, forget counting the fate of all of humanity.

And there’s more. The report also says that we are on track to almost exhausting the entire 1.5°C carbon budget to 2050 by 2030! 
... Read more ...

Australia announced its intention to bid for COP31 in conjunction with the Pacific Islands. This is a great opportunity to bring the focus of the international community to some of the world’s most vulnerable countries – the Pacific Small Island Developing States. But the bid will not automatically provide a fig leaf to cover Australia’s less than stellar climate record. It is now time for Australia to establish its climate bona fides by stepping up to take responsibility for its actions.

Australia has been missing in action at COP for the best part of the last decade, the conga line of fossil fuel companies, particularly gas, came to a crescendo in Glasgow where you could not tell the difference between the Australian pavilion and that of the gas industry.  A change of government in Australia in May has bought a change in rhetoric — but will it be matched by action?

A visit to the Australian Pavilion in this COP shows an increased focus on First Nations, as well as a removal of fossil fuel branding. This is a welcome step. But, while domestically the landscape has changed, Australia must step forward at this COP. Of keen interest will be whether Australia supports the loss and damage provisions being argued by civil society.
... Read more ...

Today in the high-level statements, Germany made a €‎170 million commitment to the Global Protection Shield, a joint initiative between the G7 and the V20. The fact that the G7 and the Climate Vulnerable Forum have chosen to announce this initiative at COP27 is recognition that the poorest and least responsible need help, but that opening sentence highlights the inadequacy of this initiative. This is one member of the G7, and the V20 don’t have any choice as no other substantial finance contributions to pay for loss and damage is on offer.  

The global shield aims to build on the “Insuresilience” Initiative to deliver innovative insurance products to compensate people for climate impacts. But insurance isn’t affordable for the people who really need it, doesn’t cover all of the losses these people are facing and if it is going to operate long term, it needs robust domestic insurance markets. It may be an appropriate modality for some climate costs, but it is totally inadequate to the scale of the losses currently being experienced.

For example, Pakistan is facing consecutive heat followed by flood emergencies with losses at a catastrophic scale. This is something that insurance markets are just not resilient enough to withstand as was experienced in Germany in 2021 when the government was forced to step in following the catastrophic flooding in the Ahr valley.
... Read more ...

African feminists stand in their power to reclaim green at COP27

ECO is happy to share this part of our publication with the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) to help amplify their voice. This article reflects the views of the WGC.

Green, a colour long recognized and embraced by African people as a symbol of the abundant and natural wealth of Africa, and symbol of her sovereignty and unity across the continent. Green is also the colour of nature’s boundless forests and landscape.
Yet today, without a sense of irony, those who have led the destruction of our environment, through greed and plunder, are the ones who claim to care about it the most. Positing false and dangerous solutions as progress, hiding their ongoing exploitation and accumulation with green logos, green empty press statements, and green taglines. 
It is in this spirit of reclamation and resistance, that African feminists have come to COP27 to affirm our place and stake in the future that we want. To reclaim our green: to say no to false solutions that displace our communities that rely on unproven and harmful technologies, and that sell us an “industrial revolution.” 
Today we wear green to make one thing clear: we have real solutions that must be scaled and resourced, and we must stop greenwashing false ones.
... Read more ...

COPs are meant to be a dedicated space to confront the escalating climate chaos and move all countries forward together on finding and investing in solutions. Yet elements of this year’s meeting seem to be designed to turn COP27 into a promotional convention for fossil gas at the exact moment in which the crisis of the fossil fuel system is being exposed as a cause and accelerant of the many crises the world is facing – from conflict to inflation to high commodity prices to, of course, the climate crisis.

ECO has been listening with mounting concern in recent months as Ministers from our host country have been using multilateral meetings to push the outdated myth that fossil gas should act as a “bridge” fuel. Now, science and the International Energy Agency (IEA) are crystal clear: gas is a bridge to nowhere. Burning just the oil and gas in fields that are already open now would take us beyond 1.5ºC. Expanding fossil fuels of any kind is senseless. The IEA says that demand is peaking, even within business-as-usual scenarios; further investments in oil and gas will lead to worse energy access and security, whereas countries that have more renewable energy generation have been spared the worst of the energy crisis.
... Read more ...

As the ‘African COP’ progresses in Egypt, and the world counts on its leaders to make crucial climate commitments, ECO wants to know: are you ready to commit to end energy poverty through clean and affordable energy sources and achieve the SDG7 goal of universal energy access?

The reality is stark: 760 million people still lack access to electricity, 2.6 billion lack access to clean cooking fuels, and 1.1 billion lack access to cooling which can help prevent large-scale food wastages. But access to reliable, clean, and affordable energy can help assuage the polycrisis of inflation, food shortages, and rising energy costs currently gripping the world. Reliable energy access can also catalyze development across different areas such as education, health, reducing hunger, improving productivity, and so on which leads to the achievement of many other SDGs. However, the progress so far has not been encouraging!

Between 2019 and 2021, the number of people without access to electricity has not decreased significantly, compared to the 9% average annual decrease seen between 2015 and 2019. In sub‐Saharan Africa, the number of people without access increased in 2020 for the first time since 2013. In addition, the challenges imposed by COVID-19 increased the number of people without access to clean cooking fuels by 1%, putting countries further away from the goal of universal access to clean cooking.
... Read more ...

On the eve of COP27 opening, while many were fast asleep, the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body adopted dodgy recommendations on guidance for activities related to removals. Just a reminder: Adopting a rushed decision in the middle of the night is decidedly not a good practice and not surprisingly has led to a bad outcome. Throughout the meeting, observers were relegated to a separate room and the intended interaction didn’t happen due to “insufficient time.”

ECO is worried about some elements of the text, and thinks that these should be removed before they sink ambition.

First, the proposed definition of removals is not appropriate. No credits should be issued to “processes to remove GHGs”. The credits should only go to outcomes, because these credits represent “mitigation outcomes”, not “some process that might deliver mitigation outcomes if things go well”. And keep in mind that removals are not reductions.

Second, the list of possible sinks to store the removed GHGs is too wide. Including “oceans” as a possible sink with no further limitations opens the door to dangerous and far-reaching options such as ocean fertilization. While some niche practices that restore damaged ocean ecosystems (seagrass, salt marshes, mangroves) could play a useful role in removing GHGs through anthropogenic actions, the proposed language is too broad and goes much beyond those activities.
... Read more ...

ECO was pleased that today negotiators got together to discuss the Mitigation Work Programme, a key outcome needed from this COP. We thought the air conditioning plus plane noise issues would be an extra incentive for them to get to a consensus on this desperately needed Work Programme,, but it seems that was not quite what happened. So let’s remember why we need a a Work Programme that’s more than a talk shop: we are not on track.

The UNFCCC Synthesis Report of 2022, launched last week, couldn’t be clearer: while science states we need a global reduction of 43% of emissions from 2019 levels by 2030 to keep 1.5˚ C within reach, the current NDCs submitted, if fully implemented including conditional targets, will amount to a reduction of 3.6% of emissions from 2019 levels. The UNEP Gap report, also launched just before COP, confirmed the same. We are woefully far from where we need to be.

There are a few parties saying that this essential Work Programme should only last for one year. And yet after 30 years of the Convention, it would be quite clear that we are running out of time to close the emissions gap and achieve the Paris temperature goal.
... Read more ...