ECO Newsletter

It seems that COP26 Transport Day, is set to focus mainly on electric vehicles. Of course, a consensus on the pace of transition to zero emission vehicles is needed to meet climate targets. It is also clear that there is a need for a commitment to ensure all new car sales are restricted to zero emission vehicles. Or that countries should put in place policies to ensure that fleet-owning businesses commit to achieving fully zero emission fleets. Those needs are all depicted in the official description of the COP26 Transport Day and, despite being undeniably necessary measures, what is missing is the encouragement for truly green transportation. It seems that alternative means of transport, such as electric trains and active mobility modes, were left out of the agenda when in truth they represent the only sustainable option.

Don’t get us wrong: we undoubtedly want the electric transition in mobility, but it will take too long. On the contrary, walking, trains, bicycles, and other similar means are the only ones that can sharply reduce emissions by 2030. Transport represents around 25% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and, moreover, is the main cause of mortality in cities. Air pollution, closely linked to transport, causes annually millions of premature deaths and diseases, such as coronary or respiratory diseases, and is the most important environmental risk factor for human health.
... Read more ...

For decades ECO has watched in dismay as world governments came to COP after COP promising more climate action, only to go home and continue producing and burning more coal, oil and gas. 

The world has known for over a century that the combustion of these fossil fuels causes climate change. Yet try as you might to find a mention of the need to phase-out the use and production of fossil fuels in the Framework Convention on Climate Change – or even in the Paris Agreement itself – you’ll come up empty-handed. So far, ECO’s beloved COP process has had everything to say about the need to reduce emissions, and almost nothing to say about the need to reduce our reliance on the dominant source of those emissions: fossil fuels. 

ECO thinks COP26 has the chance to change this.

We have come to a breaking point in the implementation of the Paris Agreement where it is no longer possible for countries to ignore the necessary escalation of the energy transition and the need to phase-out fossil fuels. This has driven the series of major announcements last week focused on curbing the production and financing of fossil fuels. In Glasgow, Parties are finally saying the F-words. 
... Read more ...

You may have heard of a recent greenwashing trend whereby fossil fuel majors are marketing their polluting products as “carbon neutral”. In 2021 alone, companies have claimed 19 massive fossil fuel cargoes to be “carbon neutral” on the basis that the associated oil and gas companies have retired carbon credits to compensate for fossil emissions. What’s more, oil and gas companies are pushing the myth that carbon capture and storage can make fossil fuels “carbon-free”. 

There are SO many problems with such claims that ECO does not even know where to begin but suffice it to say that, no matter how much fossil fuel companies and countries try, they cannot offset their way to 1.5˙C. That’s why, despite the number of net zero emissions pledges trumpeted at COP26 and repeated promises that Article 6 is going to deliver on ambition, ECO remains dubious. 

Let’s be clear: the surest way to avoid truly catastrophic levels of warming is to cut emissions at the source, in line with science and equity, by immediately halting expansion of oil, gas, and coal, phasing out their production and consumption, reducing agricultural emissions and ending deforestation. Staying below 1.5°C requires bringing fossil fuel emissions and deforestation down to zero–real zero–not “balancing” them out with carbon credits or illusory technologies in the pursuit of a theoretical “net” zero. 
... Read more ...

ECO has been following discussions on the “cover decision” and has heard that some Parties do not acknowledge the importance of such a piece. So, we thought it was a good idea to remind negotiators and especially Ministers that this is the decision that sets the political tone of how the world is responding to the climate crisis. This is your best chance to respond to the demands, not only from the record number of people marching on the streets on Saturday, but from people all over the world: civil society, youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, children, workers.

We are now in the second week and a bit tired of so many queues and meetings and we imagine that negotiators must also be exhausted. But since this is one of the most important outcomes of this COP, we wanted to highlight the key points we think should be in there (you’re welcome, and we trust you will pick this up!!!). So here it goes: 

1.   Loss and damage finance: Our number one request is for you to establish a new stream to provide sufficient and needs-based Loss and Damage finance, in addition to the US$100 billion per year committed for mitigation and adaptation.
... Read more ...

While we have seen some encouraging progress here at COP26 on phasing out coal, one 

country you won’t see in that list is Japan, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gases emitters ー and with over 20% of its emissions coming from burning coal. ECO recognizes that OECD countries must exit coal by 2030 in line with the science-based 1.5℃ pathway, but it seems Japan is not aware of that, even in the second week of COP26. Despite a recent 2050 net-zero emissions declaration and updated 2030 reduction targets, Japan currently has no concrete plan to phase out its 160+ operating coal units, and is still intending on having nearly a fifth of its power coming from coal in 2030. 

Even worse, Japan has a number of new coal-fired power plants under construction, along with plans to keep its oldest coal plants alive by bolting on ammonia and hydrogen technology that would only marginally reduce emissions. And this dedication to coal power is not limited to domestic projects ー the government continues to support coal abroad, funding major “unabated” coal power projects Indramayu in Indonesia and Matarbari in Bangladesh.  

At a time when Japan is required to do its fair share to meet the Paris goals as a major emitter and developed country, PM Kishida is instead doubling-down on Japan’s commitment to keep coal alive, restating at COP26 that Japan’s energy strategy relies on using hydrogen and ammonia produced from fossil fuels as so-called “zero-emission thermal power.”
... Read more ...

ECO believes it’s obvious that we can’t burn our way out of the climate crisis. Avoiding the worst impacts of the climate crisis and keeping 1.5˙C within reach requires a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and other carbon-rich fuels, and the parallel protection and restoration of ecosystems —not more extraction. 

Burning trees for energy emits carbon instantaneously. In fact, burning forest biomass emits as much – or more – CO₂ than fossil fuels at the smokestack and per unit of energy produced (as well as a slew of other pollutants including soot, perpetuating harms in communities near these plants). Co-firing of coal and biomass for energy can also prolong the lives of coal plants.

Proponents love to argue that as long as it’s “sustainable,” forestry can deliver carbon-neutral energy. Biomass feedstock can range from sawdust to agricultural residues or even mature, whole trees that wouldn’t sell for timber. And when trees are harvested, they take a long time to regrow—longer than Paris Agreement’s time frames for emissions reductions.

Like taking out a loan at a bank, this creates a “carbon debt” until all of the ecosystem carbon released during harvest and combustion is recaptured by plant growth. Scientists note that the period of time for regrowth to  “payback” the carbon debt often spans decades to centuries.
... Read more ...

Today, more than 150 nationally-elected legislators from 30 countries around the world are urging their colleagues to join their call for a Fossil Fuel Free Future.

The call was initiated by over a dozen parliamentarians in the Global South covering Bangladesh, Colombia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Kiribati, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa and Timor Leste. Their collective demands have now grown to include voices from every single major continent.

ECO welcomes the call. Governments must get together and agree to the principle of no new production and set that as a global norm, and then begin the work of negotiating the drawing down of production over time, in line with what’s required by science.

This will only be possible when the governments who have gotten wealthy from mining like the US, Norway, Canada, the UK, and Australia are prepared to support countries to diversify their economies with the resources, access to technology and supportive international rules that give them the space to make and commit to these policies.

Together, these parliamentarians are demanding that world leaders embrace the spirit of international cooperation “given the huge historical contribution of fossil fuels to causing climate change, the industry’s continuing expansion plans, and demands on the public purse”.
... Read more ...

Countries from around the world have committed to climate finance to support climate action but, what does that really mean? While a growing number of state and non-state actors heeded to a call for an increased climate finance, the structure continues to fall short of effectively addressing the needs of Indigenous Peoples. This has amounted to small, short-term, project based funding that is not scalable and completely narrow in scope and reach. 

Over US$19.2 billion from combined public and private funds has been pledged at COP26 to end deforestation by 2030 and another $ 1.7 billion in support of Indigenous Peoples’ land and forest tenure. But this commitment remains hollow until there is a mechanism that ensures resources actually reach Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples are demanding an inclusive, just and equitable climate financing channeled directly to Indigenous communities both in developed and developing countries. 

Why the need for a dedicated climate financing mechanism for Indigenous Peoples?

It has become clear that Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately impacted by climate change, yet there remains an unequal access and benefits to climate financing under existing arrangements, for example, through the Green Climate Fund, which to date, has not accredited a single Indigenous organization, owing to the governance structure that makes it difficult or impossible for Indigenous Peoples to comply with.
... Read more ...