ECO Newsletter

In closely listening to Parties’ discussion of adaptation communication under the APA, ECO thinks that adaptation communications are a key contributor to understanding and assessing progress—or lack thereof—towards the global goal on adaptation.

It would be helpful to develop guidance for streamlined communications to assist developing countries in managing their adaptation planning, monitoring challenges and reporting requirements. This should take into account the different roles of NDCs (forward looking), NAPs (as NDC implementation roadmaps) and national communications (backward looking) as well as synergies with the SDGs and the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, where appropriate.

Given that the Paris Agreement includes key adaptation principles (Art. 7.5), countries should provide information on how they plan to apply these principles. This can facilitate learning across borders.

ECO thinks that addressing adaptation communications in a focused manner, as is currently happening in the APA under item 4, is an adequate approach that avoids a mix-up with the discussion about mitigation communication guidance. This promotes adaptation communication as independent and equally important.

Finally, it is legitimate for countries to use their NDCs on support needs to build sufficient adaptive capacity in light of expected levels of global warming. This could inform the global stocktake and other discussions on means of implementation, and open ways towards achieving sustainable development despite climate change impacts.

This is an unjust world, but the climate transition cannot not be. If we’re to have a real chance at the Paris temperature targets, we must avoid narrow nationalism and commit to equity. Yet, even after the Paris breakthrough, equity is treated as an irritant or a danger by even by some of our high level champions. several of whom are prone to railing against “burden sharing” and even “carbon budgets.”

ECO begs to differ, noting the Paris Agreement established a Global Stocktake process that is explicitly to be conducted “in the light of equity.” It would not be wise to conduct a first major assessment in 2018 (code name “facilitated dialogue”) of our various climate actions without considering equity.

Do we imagine that poor countries are going to develop strategies for decarbonisation—which have to be visionary and ambitious by their very nature—without substantial and predictable channels of support? And what about the need to face together the immense suffering and destruction that we hide with dry UNFCCC jargon? We need to start talking, with all due seriousness, of the equity challenges on this front.

This must be a just transition, or it won’t happen at all.

When it comes to how much our planet is warming, what counts is the cumulative emissions that we’ve pumped into the atmosphere. This is a matter of physics, not politics. In its 5th Assessment Report, the IPCC provided global carbon budgets—or the amount of carbon we could emit—and still hold global warming to certain temperatures. To have a 66% chance for staying below 1.5°C, we have now only some 200 gigatonnes of emissions left. If we accept a 50% chance, we have 350 gigatonnes.

Five years of current global annual emissions (38 gigatonnes of CO2 per year) would entirely consume the remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of staying below 1.5°C . Accepting the higher budget for a 50% chance would give us 9 years.

To avoid blowing the 1.5°C carbon budget and give ourselves a chance for reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement, annual emissions need to go down steeply before 2020.

Australia! We’ve had our differences, but today you made ECO smile. Yesterday, we woke to the happy news that you ratified the Paris Agreement. And let’s face it, we all needed a bit of boost! For those who might be surprised, ECO notes that the move was welcomed by leading Australian businesses, investors, unions, and welfare and environment groups—all keen to see a proper integration of climate, energy and economic policy.

And in case it escaped your fellow Parties’ attention, ECO would like to spotlight that Australia found the best pairing since Vegemite on toast by ratifying the Doha Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol at the same time!

In the draft outcome for CMA1, the COP President is urging Parties who have not done so to ratify the Paris Agreement and the Doha Amendment as soon as possible. If you’re yet to do either: follow Australia’s example and ratify both at once.

Today’s Fossil of the Day goes to… the European Union for peddling biofuels! The EU has considerable economic and technological clout at its disposal to accelerate the just transition to 100% clean, renewable energy. Unfortunately, the EU is instead promoting biofuels in their SBSTA submission on agriculture.

The EU knows that biofuels are a false solution to climate change and do not provide the promised emissions reductions. The expansion of biofuels also drives illegal land-grabs, where small, family farmers are forced off their land, and increases food prices around the world.

Those most likely to be hurt by major biofuels expansions—poor farmers in developing countries—are also among the most vulnerable to climate change.

We can do better than replacing on extractive and exploitative fuel source with another. The EU needs to take a long, hard look at itself and commit to pursuing real change, not more false solutions.

Donald Trump’s election as the next U.S. president was a [unexpected][climatic][shocking] ending to a turbulent campaign that tapped into the anxiety felt by many American voters over globalisation, immigration, stagnating incomes and shrinking economic opportunities. The election revealed a deeply divided electorate: while Hillary Clinton received the most votes nationally, overwhelmingly won the youth, women and people of colour, Donald Trump won in enough states to prevail in the electoral college, thereby securing the presidency.

Understandably, delegates and reporters have questions about the implications of a Trump administration for domestic emissions reductions. ECO is confident that the rapidly expanding deployment of clean energy solutions by states, cities, and businesses across the country is enough to continue the drive to decarbonise the US energy economy, regardless of the actions that a President Trump takes—or doesn’t take. But a cut back on federal policy leadership, will no doubt impair the US meeting its 2025 emissions commitments.

President-elect Trump emphasised his campaign promise to create millions of new jobs for American workers. The most effective way to do this is by embracing the renewable energy revolution. While there are divisions between Democrats and Republicans on climate policy, there has been bipartisan support for investments in clean energy as well as in climate resilience. 
... Read more ...

Before negotiators convened, Panama sent a signal to the carbon market world on how essential robust stakeholder consultation is. Following years of protest and controversy, Panama withdrew its approval from the Barro Blanco Clean Development Mechanism hydroelectric power project, effectively preventing it from issuing offset credits.

Barro Blanco, not only had little environmental integrity, but also serious social, environmental, and human rights consequences. ECO applauds the Panamanian decision but remains concerned for communities still affected by the ongoing “test flooding” of the reservoir.

The constant roars of airplanes overhead must be reminding negotiators of ICAO’s enthusiasm for international offsets. It is urgent that any market mechanisms learn from the Barro Blanco experience and incorporate a rights based holistic market design that moves beyond offsetting, ensures environmental integrity, genuinely furthers ambition, and works towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

ECO longs to believe that emphasis in the Paris Agreement and Article 6 on the need to respect human rights in climate action really will mean something on the ground. Specifically, this means clear guidance for local stakeholder consultation, safeguards in line with best practice among multilateral finance institutions, and a grievance process for when implementation goes wrong.

ECO felt the sweet tinge of elation, like when you meet a good old friend, when several Parties made a strong case for common 5-year commitment periods in yesterday’s APA informal. It was probably no coincidence that it was some of the most climate vulnerable countries (AOSIS, CARICOM and the Africa Group) that led the charge.

As has been emphasised many times, the NDCs currently on the table will lead to 3°C of climate catastrophe. That would spell doom for many, and leaves us with little to no choice. We need to speed up the transition considerably, starting now. Including via new and stronger NDCs from Parties in the coming few years. Failing that will lock the world in to catastrophic warming before the ink on the Paris Agreement has even dried.

ECO is perplexed that many Parties still labour under the delusion that no increase in action is needed this side of 2030. So far, many parties have been reluctant to enhance their NDC. This is rather curious as Parties advocating for 10-year commitment periods last year kept assuring, and then reassuring, ECO that such lengthy commitment periods would not lock in low ambition. ECO had even, being such a helpful soul, suggested that maybe 5-year commitment periods would be a much more reasonable approach.
... Read more ...

It’s impossible not to notice that developed countries are very pleased with themselves for publishing their “Roadmap to the US$100 billion” this past October. This is even more apparent from yesterday’s joint statement on the roadmap.

ECO too is pleased to have the roadmap, don’t get us wrong. It enhances transparency on how developed countries plan to reach the collective target of US$100 billion per year by 2020. But ECO also expects further progress on patchy areas where more clarity is needed: mobilised private finance is one example that comes to mind.

The joint statement reiterates developed countries’ commitment to “significantly increase finance for adaptation”. ECO is not one to dismiss such a commitment, but by our calculations, the projected doubling of adaptation finance will leave public finance for adaptation at only 20% of the total $100 billion in 2020—not quite the agreed “balance” between mitigation and adaptation by anyone’s standards, surely.

Looking more closely, it seems a few developed countries are—how shall we put it?—dragging down the average. Some of these countries currently provide only around 10% of their climate finance for adaptation and have made insufficient or even no commitments on how this will change by 2020.
... Read more ...