ECO Newsletter

Last week’s UN Environment Emissions Gap Report showed that the world’s ‘distance to target’ on carbon emissions continues to grow. The gap between current NDCs and the 1.5 and 2 degree trajectories ranges between a huge 11 and 19 gigatons of CO2 equivalent emissions for 2030, 20-35% of present emissions.

Scientists suggest that the even with full implementation of current NDCs 80% of the carbon budget for 2 degrees will be depleted by 2030, and would be fully depleted for the 1.5 degree target. And that is if countries actually fulfill their NDC commitments, which is in doubt for the US, Indonesia, Australia, and several others.

The conclusion is that current NDCs are not enough. Governments already know that their combined pledges for 2030 are insufficient, particularly those of industrialised countries. The IPCC Special Report in autumn 2018 will show this ever more clearly, but governments should not wait for this to act.

There is good news, however. Global CO2 equivalent emissions — not just energy-related CO2 — seem to have plateaued between 2014 to 2016. Moreover, there is growing potential for cost-effective carbon cuts, defined as below $US100/ton CO2, until 2030. This means that the number of policies with minimal or even negative costs have been growing significantly.
... Read more ...

Last week’s UN Environment Emissions Gap Report showed that the world’s ‘distance to target’ on carbon emissions continues to grow. The gap between current NDCs and the 1.5 and 2 degree trajectories ranges between a huge 11 and 19 gigatons of CO₂ equivalent emissions for 2030, 20-35% of present emissions.

Scientists suggest that the even with full implementation of current NDCs 80% of the carbon budget for 2 degrees will be depleted by 2030, and would be fully depleted for the 1.5 degree target. And that is if countries actually fulfill their NDC commitments, which is in doubt for the US, Indonesia, Australia, and several others.

The conclusion is that current NDCs are not enough. Governments already know that their combined pledges for 2030 are insufficient, particularly those of industrialised countries. The IPCC Special Report in autumn 2018 will show this ever more clearly, but governments should not wait for this to act.

There is good news, however. Global CO₂ equivalent emissions — not just energy-related CO₂ — seem to have plateaued between 2014 to 2016. Moreover, there is growing potential for cost-effective carbon cuts, defined as below $US100/ton CO₂, until 2030. This means that the number of policies with minimal or even negative costs have been growing significantly.
... Read more ...

Picture a country where renewables make up nearly 50% of the energy mix, where sustainable biofuels are commonplace, and where huge strides have been taken to reduce wasteful carbon emissions; more so than any other country over the last decade. One may think such a country would be poised to lead the world in developing a green economy. But Brazil has apparently chosen to change course and become a petrostate instead.

Ever since it discovered large offshore oil deposits, Brazil has reduced support for ethanol and doubled down on dirty energy. About 70% of all its energy investments in the next decade are earmarked for fossil fuel projects, mostly offshore oil and gas. As if this weren’t bad enough, President Michel Temer is now supporting a tax break for oil companies that could amount to US$300 billion over the next 2 decades – even as the country flounders in the worst recession in its history. 

While Brazilian negotiators in Bonn vow more climate ambition and peddle biofuels as a climate mitigation solution, President Temer has sent a welcome package for oil majors, an emergency bill (Medida Provisória ), to Congress. It has a deadline of December 15 for approval. If it clears Congress, oil companies will flow into Brazil like an oil slick.
... Read more ...

While walking the corridors of the Bula and Bonn zones, ECO is hearing an old tune – but it’s not a lieder by Beethoven, it’s the siren song for the continuation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) after 2020. This is very disappointing and ECO is confused as to why this is still being presented as an open issue. In the interests of protecting environmental integrity, a key principle of the Paris Agreement, it is essential to start with a clean slate and make its Article 6 fit for purpose.

The CDM provides a wealth of experience, both positive and negative, which should not be forgotten. At the same time, it should not be allowed to undermine the ambition of the Paris Agreement. Here are a couple of points to respond to discussions on the CDM:

First and foremost, the Paris Agreement calls for more ambition. The recent UN Environment Emissions Gap report highlighted the necessity for more and faster action in all sectors. The zero-sum exercise of pure offsetting such as in the CDM – shifting emissions from one place to another – is simply passé. If markets are still to play a role they have to go beyond this framework.
... Read more ...

Crikey, Australia, you’re stinking up the Pacific! Why are you considering funding a mine that would sharply increase the country’s GHG emissions, endanger the already fragile Great Barrier Reef, and further impact the vulnerable Pacific Islands?!

Both the Australian Queensland state and the federal government have given approval for the Adani mine in the Galilee Basin. The only thing missing for this devious plan to come into effect is funding. Not to worry, Adani has applied for nearly US$1 billion in handouts from the government-backed Northern Australian Infrastructure Fund and are also seeking funding from Chinese banks!

Not only would funding this mine be catastrophic for at least four threatened species, several vulnerable habitats, and the Great Barrier Reef, it would also release heaps of emissions. The annual emissions from the Adani coal mine would be greater than the annual sum emissions of all 14 independent Pacific island countries.

Our second Fossil of the Day goes to Poland for obstructing negotiations and trying to subsidize coal, rather than phasing it out.

With great power comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, Poland isn’t keen on the responsibility part.

The host of the next COP is trying to turn the EU’s flagship climate tool into the world’s largest coal subsidy scheme.
... Read more ...

ECO was pleased to hear the German environment minister announcing a new pledge of €50 million for the Adaptation Fund (and the development minister adding another €50m for the Least Developed Countries Fund). This has been a welcome signal on day 1 of the COP23 – and all the other rich countries now have nearly two weeks to contemplate if they follow suit.

What the minister did not mention in her opening speech is that the current government has slowed down renewable energy expansion and failed to agree on a phase-out plan for coal. This is at odds with the majority of the German population who favour a coal exit. Last Saturday, Bonn saw the largest climate march ever in Germany, with people demanding climate justice and a rapid coal phase-out. It may have slipped some delegates’ attention, but Bonn is not even 50km from the Rhineland coalfields, Europe’s largest source of carbon pollution with huge open-pit lignite mines and coal power stations.

In fact, German greenhouse gas emissions have not gone down for the past 8 years. Germany is going to miss its domestic 2020 reduction target of 40% compared to 1990 levels by a wide margin if the new government does not act decisively.
... Read more ...

ECO read the informal note prepared by COP22 and COP23 Presidencies on the features of the facilitate dialogue in 2018 (a.k.a “Talanoa Dialogue”) with great interest and believes that the note reflects rich consultations they had with Parties throughout the year. It can serve as a good start for discussion to finalize the “design” of the dialogue at this COP.

The dialogue will be the first opportunity for Parties to recognize the gap we have and to explore ways to ramp up their ambition.  The increase of ambition could take various forms but one thing is clear: the Dialogue has to inspire Parties to take concrete actions to put us back on the right track to achieve the Paris Agreement’s purpose.

ECO finds it a great idea to have both COP23 and COP24 Presidencies navigate the Dialogue.  We trust both presidencies to conduct the Dialogue in a “Talanoa” style, meaning, in an “inclusive, participatory and transparent” manner. We also welcome the fact that the note recognizes the role of non-Party Stakeholders in convening national, regional or global events as well as in preparing analytical and policy relevant inputs. There are still some issues to be resolved in the design but we also recognize that we do not have much time left till the end of this COP.
... Read more ...

ECO listened carefully to governments’ opening statements and is pleased to hear that adaptation is not forgotten. Ambitious adaptation is necessary for countries’ sustainable efforts to succeed despite the growing impacts of climate change, which are unavoidable. Contributions such as the 50 million Euros pledge for the Adaptation Fund by Germany on day 1 of COP 23 should inspire other developed countries to follow suit.

So, adaptation is crucial. However, as is often the case, adaptation is scattered across various agenda items and it is easy to lose sight of the full adaptation picture. That is why ECO is offering this handy guide:

• • Adaptation Fund (AF): The easy answer to the question of whether the AF shall serve the Paris Agreement is: YES! And Parties could agree on this answer here in Bonn, while sorting out remaining details in the next year.

• Adaptation Communications: Under the Paris Agreement, Parties should make progress on the guidance required in order to report what they have been doing on adaptation, outlining their plans for future actions, and informing the Global Stocktake. Just repeating what is already enshrined in the Paris Agreement is not enough. Parties have to say what they want in the adaptation communications, capture common points, sort out the differences and start to write down the draft guidelines!

We all know that strong NDCs require strong support, including technology development and transfer.

Given the capacity gaps in many developing countries, matching national needs and NDC priorities and assessing the often complex technological choices and trade-offs can be a challenge. With rapid changes in technologies, developing countries will need more timely and suitable support to fully implement their NDCs at the scope and scale necessary to be able to limit temperature increases to 1.5ºC.

Countries  need to ask their representatives at the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) to embrace the Technology Assessment and Horizon-Scanning.

It all starts with the recognition that all technologies are not equal when it comes to safety, impacts and efficacy. So before countries make their technology choices, there must be solid Technology Assessments to help them fully understand the risks, costs and benefits of the decisions they are making. That alone is a good start, but if we want to further increase ambition, we must do more.

The purpose of Horizon-scanning is to mine relevant existing data to predict future climate technology advances, scales, needs and potential impacts, and then to identify the most promising mitigation, adaptation, and loss-and-damage remediation technologies to find environmentally sound, socially acceptable, gender responsive, and effective options on which countries can rely.
... Read more ...