ECO Newsletter

ECO is looking forward to observing the second set of facilitative sharing of views and the multilateral assessment workshops today. Since ECO can’t ask questions during these workshops, we figured we’d share our questions with you anyway.

ECO is eagerly awaiting news from Germany’s coal commission, while noting the discrepancy between scientific results (SR1.5) and Germany’s declared intentions at international conferences and its domestic climate policy. What measures is Germany planning in the energy sector to achieve its national climate protection targets by 2020? How many gigawatts of coal-fired power plants will have to be shut down to achieve that target? What is Germany doing to create the necessary framework conditions to reduce its transport emissions by 40 to 42 percent by 2030, as indicated in its NDC?

While Czechia is projected to meet its 2020 target, the planned extension of the Bílina open-cast lignite mine calls into question its ability to continue to achieve emission reductions and raises the possibility of future stranded assets. Phasing-out coal energy by 2030 at the latest will be critical for Europe and the OECD in responding to the SR1.5. When will Czechia announce such a phase-out and introduce measures to deliver it?

The share of coal in Hungary’s energy mix is minor and its fleet is old.

Sitting in the common timeframes (CTFs) discussion yesterday, ECO is disappointed by the lack of progress and backsliding of the discussion. Noting that countries have already started to discuss the timeframes for NDCs before Paris, ECO couldn’t help but wonder – are we really going to take 5 years (or even longer) to agree on 5-year common timeframes?

Hearing many countries strongly supporting the 5-year option, and a very limited number of countries going for the 10-year option, ECO can’t understand why a substantive decision can’t be adopted at this session. Can the ones that really prefer 10-years stand up and say that? By the way, EU, South Africa was wondering why you spoke extremely little. In ECO’s view, CTFs is not just a rulebook issue, but vital to the ambition of the Paris regime. The ones that support 5-year are supporters of ambition.

Finally, ECO is very concerned about the reference in the text to CTFs being applied from 2041 onward. If it remains in the text, it would be significant backsliding for both the rulebook and ambition.

Walking around the COP, have you already met the ‘wolf in the sheep’s clothing’? The people who dress in green and call themselves ‘climate heroes’, asking everyone to sign their petition? Read the small text. They are promoting another extractive industry, which, just like coal, burns a fuel. In addition to this, it destroys the land for thousands of years. Indeed, these are the uranium lobbyists. Today is Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Ac-cording to the World Information Service Energy (WISE), almost 80% of the uranium supplying the world’s nuclear power plants is mined on indigenous territories with terri-ble human rights violations. But the good news is that today a new scientific research report is being presented at COP24 at a press conference this morning. The main point of this report is that nuclear has a much longer climate shadow than what nuclear lobbyists have claimed. It is time for that ‘emperor’ nuclear to be shown as it is: a nude, false pathway. In particular, public money is being used for subsidising the entire industry, as well as the pronuclear UN consultancy, which hides under the name of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We continue to fund them to promote their private business interests with billions of dollars.

Ever been in a small crowded room when people put up an umbrella? Awkward, right? That’s how it’s feeling here in Katowice.

The Umbrella group is an interesting bunch, and, in many ways, they don’t have all that much in common. Canada is today’s crown jewel – a little ECO- round of applause for their plans to raise their emissions targets by 2020 – we look forward to hearing more when Minister McKenna is in Katowice next week. And at the G20, Australia, Canada, Russia and Japan all showed their unflinching commitment to Paris, whereas the US played the awkward child asking for its own special paragraph. And the likes of Iceland, Israel and Norway go back and forth but are always keen to embrace the latest clean tech. We are still waiting to see if New Zealand will step up and become a champion in climate leadership or simply waste all its potential.

This diverse bunch might be limping on but if they really want to remain true to the Paris Agreement that means doubling down on a strong transparency regime. We thought these guys were all about being at the cutting edge — building on the present — modernising for the future And yes, here we’re talking about doing MORE, NOT LESS on transparency at home and in supporting countries internationally.

At COP24, many of us recall the vision of the Paris Agreement – that of rights based climate action. In the next 48 hours Parties need to stand up for rights based climate action so that the Rulebook affirms this vision.

Oops they did it again!… Oh baby, baby!

Could it be a glitch in the matrix or a mirage in the desert? Or is it our senses that are failing us in the smog? But during negotiations here in Katowice we distinctly heard Kuwait proposing to delete specific references to the findings of the IPCC 1.5°C Special Report that were originally referenced by the Executive Committee during talks under the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage. Apparently because they “are not okay with the report.”

The IPCC report vividly highlights the massive loss and damage that many countries and communities around the world already suffer as a result of climate change. This situation will be further exacerbated if the world fails to shift away from fossil fuels as a matter of urgency – cutting emissions fast and deep enough to stay within the 1.5°C limit.

We trust that progressive countries in the Arab group will find their voice and reassure us that it was indeed just a glitch.

Kuwait also blocked a proposed paragraph that encouraged the ExCom to strengthen gender considerations for the implementation of the 5-year work plan. The Group was only willing to allow women and youth to be mentioned as part of vulnerable populations.

UNFCCC negotiators immediately understand the terms “Loss and Damage,” “Mitigation,” “Adaptation,” and “Capacity Building.” But these are all words that mean nothing when you stand to lose everything. When you’ve lost everything after a super typhoon hits your home, you understand the definition of “climate refugee”; but apparently UNFCCC negotiators cannot.

To put the problem of climate migration into context, a potential 1 metre rise in sea level, which we could see by 2050, could displace up to 20 million people in Bangladesh. For those who are at risk of being displaced due to man-made disasters, there is no choice. We all have a right to a safe and secure home. A home, which protects us from irreversible climate change. A home, which keeps us dry, warm and healthy.

Yet we still lack international protection for those forced to find a new place to call home. Migrants forced to cross international borders do not qualify as refugees, because climate change does not fall under the definition of persecution. Those choosing to move to different areas in their own countries, in anticipation of oncoming disasters, droughts and floods, are classified as economic migrants not deserving of protection. Protection is fragmented and inconsistent.

Up until now, climate finance has always been determined by developed countries – they decided what to provide,when,andforwhat.It’sbeenaWildWest,andarecipe for mistrust. Now that it is part of an international agreement, very close to adopting this COP24 Rulebook package, we have reached a crucial opportunity for developing countries to have their say in what climate finance should look like. By helping shape the rules, emerging economies will steer climate finance to where it is most needed.

We all know climate finance was a crucial element in the deal that was struck in Paris. Developing countries, many of which have contributed very little to the causes of climate change, have taken their share of responsibility in helping to stabilise the climate. But in order to achieve this, they were offered substantial financial support. Paris also recognised that developing countries are often on the frontline of impacts of climate change, while lacking the resources to respond – another good reason to support them financially.

Not less than $100 billion was offered in Copenhagen. Parties have agreed many times, for example in Lima, that developed countries would provide new, additional, adequate and predictable funding to developing countries. When you think about it, the Copenhagen commitment was made close to a decade ago, and we are still in the dark regarding what the $100 billion stood for.