ECO Newsletter

Congratulations! You actually decided to read the first sentence of this ECO article, after seeing such an “eye-glazing” Article 6 concept. 

To make sure that Article 6 goes beyond zero sum offsetting, ECO believes that the only real way to achieve this principle (and requirement under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement) is through “automatic cancellation.” What you may ask? It’s a process where buyers (like a country or an airline for compliance under the ICAO CORSIA) buy some mitigation outcomes and a certain percentage of that purchase has to be set aside for the benefit of the atmosphere. What’s left would then be used by the buyer to help achieve the target. But not everyone agrees on this approach. What follows is the first half of a conversation that ECO had with an “OMGE automatic cancellation skeptic.”

*********

ECO: So, I hear you don’t like OMGE being achieved through automatic cancellation. Why don’t you want it? 

OMGE automatic cancellation skeptic: “Well, first off, I think that OMGE through automatic cancellation is a tax on mitigation.”

ECO: No, that’s rather misleading: it’s really a subsidy to developing countries to develop projects that generate mitigation outcomes. Sure, the buyer pays a little bit more for the ITMO, but research shows that if the cancellation rate is 50% or below (and ideally 50% from ECO’s perspective), the sellers, who are likely to be developing countries, will be better off, and so will the planet.
... Read more ...

While there is no formal space in the negotiations to talk about the one thing the climate needs most – the rapid and equitable phase out of all fossil fuels – there has been a flourishing ecology of side events making just this point. Yesterday, there were several debunking the curious idea that, in a climate emergency, we can keep expanding oil and gas. The latter is often – most often in oil company ad campaigns – seen as a “bridging fuel”. Perhaps advocates of this view just mean it’s a “bridge” to climate breakdown. There are certainly cleaner and more effective ways to achieve SDG7: “to ensure affordable, reliable sustainable and modern [surely this is the antithesis of ‘fossil’] energy for all.”

A report launched by the Stockholm Environment Institute, Climate Analytics, and other research organisations this week laid out the discrepancy between countries’ planned fossil fuel production and global production levels consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. It’s carbon-bombingly, climate changingly big:

At another side event, an advisor to the Climate Vulnerable Forum called upon “Governments and multilateral institutions [to] take bold and decisive leadership to limit fossil fuel production and end the expansion of this industry….
... Read more ...

COP decision text might not always be Shakespeare, but it is how the countries of the world express their collective will and intentions on climate change. With the world teetering on the edge of total disaster, and with less than one year to decide whether to lock in NDCs that commit us to more than 3 degrees of warming, the signal that UNFCCC Parties send this year on ambition will have a special importance. 

Wednesday, Parties had their first round of consultations with the Chilean Presidency on the 1/CP.25 decision; the text that will tell us and all people around the world whether or not they are up to the challenge.  Will you do the right thing and send the strong political signal that we need in order for us to again trust you with our futures?

We have been quite clear on our measuring sticks for the 25th gathering of parties — it feels like Groundhog Day, so here we go:

1. Acknowledge that you will be guided by science and the 1.5°C goal. 
2. Commit to the highest level of ambition for revised NDCs to be tabled in 2020, well ahead of COP26 and in time for the Secretariat to prepare a synthesis report on the aggregate global ambition level (and seriously you need to deliver those NDCs already by 1st quarter, but there are also other great moments like Earth Day, in April, or the UN Environment Day, in June).

ECO is happy to share this part of our platform with the Indigenous Peoples Caucus to help amplify their voice. 

Kia ora, bula, tabea, buorre beaivi, ya’ateeh, Indigenous greetings to you all.

With everything that is on the line this year, with these negotiations and the push by countries to accept a bad agreement, rather than taking the appropriate consideration to ensure a strong Article 6 outcome that protects the rights of structurally oppressed peoples, we are very pleased to announce that as Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus we have been granted a dedicated space in this daily ECO Newsletter to share the issues that are most important to us, and our communities.

The people who are affected first and worst by climate change have also continually presented the appropriate holistic solutions for the climate crisis we are all in. Indigenous Peoples, Disabled Peoples, Women, LGBTQI+, Global South, and Youth are on the frontlines combating climate change within our own communities, and we are here contributing the MOST to a fair COP25 outcome for ALL.

Indigenous Rights, Disability Rights, Women’s Rights, LGBTQI+ Rights, Youth and Children’s Rights are ALL Human Rights, and this is our red line. 

While people with lived experience must be centered and supported to lead across all COP25 workstreams, there is also a huge role for our allies to play. 
... Read more ...

The huge forest fires raging across many countries send a clear signal — we need to keep our natural ecosystems intact or risk losing the fight against the climate emergency. Indeed, the IPCC 1.5 report was unequivocal: we cannot keep global warming below 1.5°C without tackling the crisis facing nature. ECO notes the buzzword “nature-based solutions” is flying around, looking to collect sweet nectar from fruitful coffers, and pollinating colourful blossoms galore. But we also note that the term “nature-based solutions” lacks clear definitions or criteria and can include activities that do nothing to advance real climate solutions. This has prompted ECO to take the opportunity to use specific language on the role ecosystems play in addressing the climate crisis, and how they can be protected and restored to achieve emissions reductions, enhanced resilience, and biodiversity protection:

1. The role of ecosystems in climate ambition is not an excuse for greenwashing or continued BAU — we must keep fossil fuels in the ground at all costs.
2. We need to prioritise the protection and restoration of our natural ecosystems, including primary forests and other intact ecosystems and those still rich in carbon and biodiversity. They are irreplaceable for stable carbon storage and for biodiversity, and we simply cannot afford their continued loss or degradation.

Climate Finance Reporting QUIZ

Think you know all about climate finance? Think you understand what’s at stake in new rules for reporting?  Take ECO’s TRUE or FALSE quiz to find out…

Close to 60% of all climate finance in 2017 was in the form of loans -> TRUE

And not only that, loans which amounted to US$39.9 billion in 2017, were mostly counted at full face value, ignoring interest and repayments. New common reporting tables in the Common Tabular Format  (CTF) must mark a break from this practice of over-reporting by including a column for the grant equivalent of climate finance alongside its face value.

Only genuine climate action is reported as climate finance -> FALSE

Current rules allow for gross over-estimation of the climate relevance of funds, especially where climate change is one part of a broader project with multiple objectives. At the worst end of the spectrum, some countries (including Japan, Iceland and Greece) are counting the climate component of these projects at 100% of the project budget. New CTF tables must guard against this by including a “climate specific” column, a “full project value” column, and a requirement that parties set out their methodology for calculating these separate amounts.

All parties agree the Common Tabular Format should be common -> FALSE

ECO is scratching its head as to why some are proposing parties be allowed to delete columns and amend tables to suit their own reporting preferences.
... Read more ...

The huge forest fires raging across many countries send a clear signal — we need to keep our natural ecosystems intact or risk losing the fight against the climate emergency. Indeed, the IPCC 1.5 report was unequivocal: we cannot keep global warming below 1.5°C without tackling the crisis facing nature. ECO notes the buzzword “nature-based solutions” is flying around, looking to collect sweet nectar from fruitful coffers, and pollinating colourful blossoms galore. But we also note that the term “nature-based solutions” lacks clear definitions or criteria and can include activities that do nothing to advance real climate solutions. This has prompted ECO to take the opportunity to use specific language on the role ecosystems play in addressing the climate crisis, and how they can be protected and restored to achieve emissions reductions, enhanced resilience, and biodiversity protection:

1. The role of ecosystems in climate ambition is not an excuse for greenwashing or continued BAU — we must keep fossil fuels in the ground at all costs.
2. We need to prioritise the protection and restoration of our natural ecosystems, including primary forests and other intact ecosystems and those still rich in carbon and biodiversity. They are irreplaceable for stable carbon storage and for biodiversity, and we simply cannot afford their continued loss or degradation.

ECO has been banned from COP because it is “paperless”.  Sneaking into the venue and walking through the halls, ECO saw people handing out paper flyers about upcoming side events, paper-wrapped chocolate, and glossy papery brochures. The conference venue exhibits and delegation spaces are piled high with papery materials for distribution. In fact, the only two publications not allowed in the now “paperlight” COP are ECO and the Third World Network Bulletin. How very strange. ECO is very sad about this. We would like to come back into the cosy COP venue with you, instead of being shut out in a cold and shrinking space. ECO hopes you may be able to kindly raise this matter to the UNFCCC Secretariat.