When G20 finance ministers gather in Rio de Janeiro this week, Brazil and France have a chance to put these powerful countries on track to deliver a global wealth tax that could raise over $680 billion per year in the fight to tackle poverty and the climate crisis. Both countries have been vocal supporters of taxing the super-rich to fund international development and climate action.  

In April, finance ministers Fernando Haddad (Brazil) and Bruno Le Maire (France) announced their intent to tax the wealth of billionaires by at least two percent annually, prompting ministers from Germany, South Africa and Spain to back the proposal. As the current host of the G20, Brazil commissioned an investigation into the feasibility of this global wealth tax – and the results were published by French economist Gabriel Zucman in June, generating further momentum in efforts to fill the funding gap for climate and development.  

Zucman’s findings show that a global wealth tax on the super-rich – billionaires and people with assets worth more than $100 million – could be enforced successfully even if all countries did not adopt it. It is also a popular measure: more than two-thirds of people across seventeen G20 countries show support for making the super-rich pay higher taxes as a means of funding major improvements to our economy and lifestyles.  

This isn’t surprising. Ensuring that billionaires are properly taxed could deliver significant, tangible benefits in people’s lives and go some way to addressing the systemic injustices and inequality reflected by the climate crisis and poverty. 

The world needs a new global deal on climate and development finance

An ambitious global wealth tax, together with higher and permanent tax on oil corporations and extraction, would provide hundreds of billions of dollars/euros each year to properly fund scaling up renewable energy, rolling out heat pumps and insulation programmes to lower the cost of heating or cooling our homes, new public transport links, future-proof jobs and much more – helping communities to thrive.  

It would also end more than a decade of broken promises by G20 states, ensuring that some of the world’s wealthiest countries have enough money in their national coffers to provide adequate finance to pay for those suffering the consequences of climate impacts now. Helping the poorest communities prepare for unnatural disasters like increased wildfires, flooding and sea level rise, and ensuring people can rebuild their homes, infrastructure and places of work when preventative measures are not an option. 

Power to communities

A global wealth tax is a moral imperative. By implementing a fairer system of taxation, the G20 could accelerate a just transition to a low-carbon economy, cutting dangerous carbon emissions and boosting living standards and energy access at great scale, while also tackling deep-rooted injustice. Delivering finance for community-oriented renewable energy projects across Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific would put power back in the hands of communities that continue to suffer from the violent legacy of colonialism and extractive profiteering. 

For this to be achieved France, and other wealthy nations in the G20 like Germany and the UK, must be willing to make concessions and assume historical responsibility for exploiting fossil fuel extraction in the economically poorer countries whose citizens are experiencing the worst consequences of the climate crisis. The emerging French government must deliver concrete plans to redirect its fortune and tax its billionaires towards a renewable energy-powered planet. 

Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation

It is incumbent on both Brazil and France to seize the opportunity presented by growing support to deliver a global wealth tax at the meeting of powerful finance ministers this week. Both countries must do everything they can to build trust and political will around the crucial proposal. But this will be a challenge if they undermine their stance on the international stage with contrasting domestic policy, something both governments are guilty of. 

Brazil has been pushing for new oil projects, including in the Amazon and is gearing up to become the fourth-largest oil producer in the world. France, despite being fined by the European Commission, is still not on track to meet its domestic renewable energy targets and announced in February a two billion-euro cut to the budget allocated for environmental and energy transition programmes. It is high time for both countries to stop the smoke and mirrors approach to international diplomacy, by aligning their commitments at national and international levels. 

Leaders’ summit

This week, ministers Haddad and Le Maire have a responsibility to rally their G20 counterparts around the wealth tax proposal and send a strong and unified signal to heads of state and governments to take concrete action that delivers a global wealth tax on billionaires when they meet in November. 

The stakes are high. The vast scale of global inequality means that nearly one in eleven people around the world live below the poverty line according the World Bank. In addition, this is set to be yet another record-breaking year for climate impacts, in a critical decade to prevent global heating from tipping over the 1.5°C threshold – a limit beyond which the ability of impacted communities to survive and thrive will be put at intolerable risk. We need to see vast quantities of finance mobilised to scale up renewable energy at the speed needed, and billionaires and multi-millionaires need to be forced to pay up.  

We’re all rooting for this one to work – it can take us a long way.

The post A global wealth tax is needed to help fund a just green transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

At COP29 in Baku in November, the world will come together to agree a new target for climate finance. The stakes are huge given record temperatures and heatwaves, floods and droughts wreaking havoc globally.  

Tackling climate change and its consequences – and supporting wider human development – needs urgent investment. But the international financial system is struggling to respond. Is it time now to agree a new framework for international climate and development finance? Can the G20 under Brazil’s leadership, and international leaders meeting at the United Nations in New York in September, prepare the ground for COP29?  

Almost 54 years ago, in 1970, the world came together at the UN to set a target for rich countries to support poorer countries. They promised 0.7% of national income as “official development assistance” (ODA) to improve economic outcomes and reduce poverty. At the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009, world leaders again came together and promised to mobilise an annual $100bn to finance climate action by 2020. They said this would be “new and additional” to development finance.  

Hurricane Beryl shows why the new UK government must ramp up climate finance

Since then, with the exception of a few Europeans, rich nations have failed to meet the 0.7% target. In 2022, ODA peaked at $211bn, or 0.37% of combined OECD national income. Almost 15% of this was used to finance refugee-related costs in OECD countries themselves. The climate commitment was met in 2022, two years late. Without ODA levels rising, the 33% of ODA classified as climate-related cannot reasonably be claimed as “additional”.   

 In practice, maintaining this distinction between climate and development finance has proved difficult. For example, is planting trees in an urban landscape a climate investment because it absorbs emissions, a health investment because it reduces street-level temperatures, or a biodiversity investment as it creates habitats for wildlife? 

 The challenge of navigating these distinctions means it is difficult to track commitments or secure meaningful accountability against promises made. And it leaves many countries juggling a false trade-off between investments for the planet and for their people.  

Trillions needed

It is absolutely clear, however, that financing for poorer countries needs to increase dramatically. Despite progress over recent decades, development needs remain significant, with major setbacks through the pandemic. The Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance estimates, presented to the G20, indicate that by 2030 $5.4 trillion a year will be needed for development, climate and nature. Of this, $1 trillion a year will be required in external financing for developing countries for climate and nature alone, of which roughly half will need to come from international public finance.  

International public finance – including new and additional aid finance from rich countries – is needed to provide concessional resources for the poorest and most indebted countries. It is needed to anchor capital increases for international financial institutions that can leverage this at least ten-fold, in part by borrowing from private capital markets. These institutions, together with other development finance institutions and strong policy environments, are key to bringing in private lenders and investors, whether by reducing risk or helping develop investment pipelines. 

The Loss and Damage Fund must not leave fragile states behind

As well as additional finance, poorer countries need money that better responds to their needs. In recent years, the relentless cycle of summits has spawned dozens of initiatives. The landscape is fragmented, with over 80 funds or instruments in the climate space alone. It has become increasingly difficult for poor countries to navigate this. There is an urgent need for a moratorium on new funds and to agree principles and coordination mechanisms for all external finance – building on the aid effectiveness principles agreed in the 2000s. 

Binding 0.7% commitment?

Taking these elements together, is it time now to drop the voluntary framework of ODA crafted in the last century to meet the problems of the last century? Can countries come together now to agree a new framework for official climate and development assistance, with a binding commitment for rich countries to finally meet the 0.7% national income promise by, say, 2030?  

Such a target, negotiated under a UN framework, would double the flow of aid finance. That funding would anchor multilateral, public and private investments that are needed to close the financing gap. A negotiated process could also bring in emerging countries like China that already provide significant finance. It could clarify definitions and shift arrangements for monitoring climate and other development spend from the OECD to the UN to improve accountability. And it could begin to consolidate the range of instruments and make them more responsive to the needs of poor countries. 

With public finances under strain around the world, many will say this is simply unaffordable. But international polling indicates that people are willing to contribute 1% of their income to fight climate change. Will politicians have the courage to engage their electorates? And at the G20, in the UN, in the lead up to Baku and beyond, will they have the vision to collaborate internationally to agree a new deal that delivers both development and climate justice? 

The post The world needs a new global deal on climate and development finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

With spring in full bloom, the world’s finance ministers, development and financial leaders, and philanthropists met for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings in Washington, DC last week.  

In their midst, Brazil, the current president of the G20, insisted on a balanced focus between ending poverty and food insecurity and combating climate change. President Lula makes no secret of his desire for a new international financial architecture, designed for different challenges, in a different century with new emerging powers at the table. 

2023 was the year leaders agreed the current architecture was no longer fit for purpose. 2024 needs to be the year the IMF, multilateral development banks (MDBs), and their shareholders rapidly implement reforms and begin the process for increasing capital. 

In Washington, the presidents of the MDBs held their first-ever “summit” – a direct response to insistence by G20 leaders and expert groups that the system must work more effectively together as one, in addition to individual bank reforms. 

Since G20 leaders last September called for a better, bolder and bigger MDB system, and the World Bank responded with its own roadmap of reform, changes are underway, especially in areas where the MDB managements have authority. Where progress is less clear is on issues requiring their shareholders to take the lead.  

Peak COP? UN looks to shrink Baku and Belém climate summits

Last week, coalitions of countries met with private finance, think tanks, philanthropy and civil society to discuss the key problems of debt, reversals on global development goals and lagging climate action. The policy proposals on what to do are manifold, and there is a deep well of goodwill to help with the current system’s obvious failures. But all eyes must be on governments.  

In one gathering of finance ministers, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva boiled down the climate change to-do list to the two things only they can do: price carbon effectively and remove harmful subsidies in the fuel, food and fisheries sectors. So how do we move from rhetoric to action? 

Geopolitical pressure and debt distress 

We cannot ignore the worsening context. Wars in Ukraine and Israel-Gaza, and their costs, threaten progress. Famine and conflict are taking their toll in many other countries too. Climate impacts are severe and intensifying, with crippling extreme heat stretching across India and closing school systems from the Philippines to Sudan.  

Many countries are suffering from debt distress and many more are channeling all available funds to service their debt at the expense of basic services, a serious impediment to investing in their much-needed climate resilience. Even more countries are suffering a crisis of liquidity.  

Whether it’s debt, debt service, or liquidity, it’s a crisis. Yet, at the Spring Meetings, the crisis response still lacked urgency. 

Protesters gather outside the IMF and World Bank’s 2024 Spring Meeting in Washington D.C., on April 19, 2024. (Photo: Andrew Thomas/Sipa USA)

Debt rescheduling was called out by the World Bank chief economist as inadequate. The details of how MDBs can use reflows of Special Drawing Rights as hybrid capital continues to be debated by the very same countries that urge climate action, and who themselves face fiscal pressure on their development and climate budgets.  

While shareholders, creditors and the institutional leadership played pass the parcel, the finance ministers of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) – whose cumulative debt is around $40bn, and who have no tools to dig out of their growing indebtedness and climate crisis – were despairing. As the urgency of a lack of inclusion coupled with climate stress grows, is it time not to tweak the system but to break it in places? 

For example, we could write off the debt of SIDS, while we begin new resource mobilization schemes from targeted forms of taxation to moral payments. If SIDS could face their short-term and existential challenges on a sounder footing, the international system could then expedite work on the problems of the next groups of vulnerable countries to mobilise investment in their resilience at scale.

Global billionaires tax to fight climate change, hunger rises up political agenda

To underline the bind countries find themselves in, during the time that MDB reform has become mainstream and Mia Mottley of Barbados and other leaders from emerging market and developing economies have called for a system reset under the banner of the Bridgetown Initiative, net flows of finance away from emerging and developing economies have grown. 

If we were grading reform mid-terms, we would be looking at Bs for management making in-roads on better and bolder, but an F for shareholders stuck on the bigger. How do they get straight As by the end of the year? 

IMF and World Bank at a crossroads 

First, we need radical collaboration among MDBs and between MDBs and development finance institutions, national development banks and private finance on the processes needed to get loans and guarantees disbursed faster. Some MDBs have moved to cooperate on procurement, and there are many suggestions on how to make country platforms work. But radical collaboration involves much deeper streamlining, due diligence, term sheets, analysis, talent, and pooled capital.  

Second, pressure must now be focused on the MDBs’ major shareholders: the G7, other OECD countries and the G20. While they work out how to mobilize more funds and endorse a US proposal for a framework for capital increases, there is room to de-fragment the many pockets of resources stuck in trust funds and facilities with too many strings attached to scale their impact. 

As donors dither, Indigenous funds seek to decolonise green finance

Thirdly, we must preserve the collaboration within the MDBs that, despite growing tension, means that the US, China, Europe and other large emerging economies are working together and can zero in on solutions to debt, growth of carbon markets, the evolution of the trade system, harmful subsidy removal, and shifting the development and climate finance systems to a world where all development is supporting adaptation and resilience.  

Shareholders could start by strengthening the quality of governance and ensuring that the ambition leaders show when they meet at the G20 is echoed in the way MDB board members articulate interests. This would support management to act more boldly and thwart push-back against the reform agenda among senior officials. 

In their 80th anniversary year, the IMF, the World Bank, and their owners and borrowers, are at a crossroads. The analysis of the last two years has confirmed they are necessary institutions. Yet, if they are to retain their relevance – and not face competition from new institutions and capital pools as frustration at the system’s inertia grows – reform must go deeper and faster to rise to the challenges of tomorrow, starting today. 

The post Will blossom of reform bear fruit? Spring Meetings leave too much to do  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Set against the global backdrop of poverty, hunger, climate change, debt and conflict, it can feel hard to be hopeful at present. But there is a real win-win opportunity – as well as a deep moral obligation – to heal geopolitical divisions, foster peace, alleviate poverty, ensure food and nutrition security, address the climate crisis, and deliver a better, fairer future for people and planet. It lies in the reforms of the global financial architecture necessary to deliver the additional sum of at least $3 trillion required to support countries to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Last year’s international meetings in Paris and Nairobi – leading to the Paris Pact for People and Planet, and the Nairobi Declaration – have made the case for debt relief, enhanced international taxation and global financial architecture reform. These reforms will be centre-stage at next week’s Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in Washington DC.

Here the world must urgently come together to articulate and deliver a clear plan for how to end hunger and build resilient food systems, backed by real leadership, enhanced coordination, accountability and finance. The task at hand is to connect the global imperative to act on food security, sustainable agriculture and malnutrition with the broader efforts underway to drive a reform agenda and to replenish the World Bank’s concessional lending arm, the International Development Association (IDA).

At UN climate talks in Dubai last year, 159 world leaders committed themselves to action on food security and climate change by signing the COP28 Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action – the first of its kind. The commitments in this declaration now need to be linked with the emerging global plan for increased finance.

Is water provision in drought-hit Zambia climate ‘loss and damage’ or adaptation?

African potential

Africa is ground zero for the climate crisis, but is also the continent where solutions will have the most impact. Of the 9.8 billion people expected to live on the planet by 2050, a quarter will be African. Financial reforms must unlock climate-positive green industrialization and transform food systems across the continent in a way that is compatible with sustainable and inclusive economic growth. But the ultimate test will be whether the funds released reach the communities who need them most, when they need them, producing the desired results of ending poverty, building climate-resilient infrastructure, saving nature and biodiversity from extinction, and delivering prosperous lives for all.

This goal is within our reach – with evidence and farmers’ testimonials showing the success of innovative models such as the Arcos community-led scheme in Rwanda, which has empowered smallholder farmers to preserve and restore forests and agricultural landscapes. To date, 12,000 community members have grown 4.2 million trees, including fruit trees for boosting income and nutrition, nitrogen-fixing species to improve soil health, fodder species for livestock and indigenous species for biodiversity, on more than 20,000 hectares. The farmers have also built terraces across the hilly landscapes to reduce soil erosion and prevent pollution of lakes and rivers.

Nigeria’s path to net zero should be fully lined with trees – and fairness

Across much of the Global South, there are numerous such inspiring examples of where communities and societies have established social safety nets, fostered rural development, and promoted gender and social equity. These approaches have enhanced  communities’ capacity to plan for and respond to more extreme weather, to continue to deliver their crops to market despite climate change and other challenges, and to provide nutritious food for their families.

Smallholder farmers produce a third of the world’s food, yet receive only 1.7 percent of climate finance. Globally, there must be a major shift in financial flows to change that, including efforts by international development partners such as the World Bank and the philanthropic sector. National government leadership is a prerequisite to success, including revising agricultural subsidy programs to ensure they incentivize farming practices and behaviour that will help the world close the hunger gap while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting biodiversity and restoring degraded lands.

Global momentum growing

This year there is a golden opportunity to make progress on financing for food systems. As a result of consistent advocacy – including from Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, Kenyan President William Ruto and World Bank President Ajay Banga – an additional $300–400 billion in low-cost concessional finance and lending has been promised over the next decade by the multilateral development banks (MDBs) to low- and lower-middle income countries.

This recalibration of the international finance institutions’ balance sheets is a welcome development to build on – and demonstrates that climate and development commitments can be honoured. The social, economic and environmental case for making these kinds of investments in food security is unequivocal. Well-designed investments deliver four-fold benefits: they strengthen food security and nutrition; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; support nations and communities to adapt to a changing climate; and protect and restore nature.

The Brazilian government has committed to put zero hunger, sustainable agriculture and food systems centre-stage at the G20 this year, through its Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, and has committed to work closely with Italy and the rest of the G7 on this agenda. President Lula has also rightly placed the ongoing deeper reboot and replenishment of the multilateral development bank system at the heart of his G20 agenda. His leadership – in partnership with African governments and the G7, and harnessing such key moments as the UN Summit for the Future – could drive major progress at this critical time, starting at the Spring Meetings this April.

The post Spring Meetings can jump-start financial reform for food and climate  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Following fraught negotiations, G20 countries clinched an agreement in India’s capital New Delhi on Saturday afternoon.

Raising the bar on climate targets was a priority of India’s G20 presidency, which had placed big stakes on the event’s success. Across Delhi, it was impossible to escape the gaze of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his face alongside motivational slogans on huge billboards.

His main negotiatior Amitabh Kant hailed the agreement as the “most ambitious document on climate action” so far, striking a triumphant figure during the press conference.

But deep fault lines remain on fossil fuels ahead of the Cop28 climate summit later this year.

Renewables breakthrough

The G20 member countries together account for over three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, and a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate change.

The big breakthrough was on renewables. The final text includes a commitment to “pursue and encourage efforts to triple renewable energy capacity” by 2030. That target is vital to keep the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C within reach, according to the International Energy Agency.

Mexico’s ruling party picks climate scientist for presidential run

The European Union and the United Arab Emirates, the Cop28 hosts, have made it a centerpiece of their respective battle plans for the climate summit. When it was first announced, experts thought the pledge would find broad consensus. But at the G20 energy ministers’ meeting in July, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China blocked a deal.

One and half months later leaders broke the deadlock. It is welcome news for the Cop28 president-designate Sultan Al-Jaber, who said “the G20 has made important progress” and he was “grateful for the commitment made” on the renewable energy target.

Carbon-capture caveat

Getting the leaders to unite behind it in Delhi has come alongside concessions on other fronts. In the same paragraph, the declaration says G20 countries will “demonstrate similar ambition with respect to other zero and low-emission technologies, including abatement and removal technologies”.

UN says more needed ‘on all fronts’ to meet climate goals

The language covers controversial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, favoured by oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

CCS remains expensive and unproven at large scale. Many climate campaigners call it a “distraction” that gives fossil fuel companies a licence to keep extracting more climate-harming coal, oil and gas.

Phase-out failure

G20 leaders also failed to move the needle on commitments to phase out polluting fossil fuels. This was referred to as “indispensable” to achieve a net-zero goal by the United Nations climate body in the first Global Stocktake report published on Friday.

The Delhi declaration urges countries to accelerate “efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power”. That is a carbon copy of what leaders agreed at their previous meeting in Bali ten months ago, following a landmark deal on coal at the 2021 climate summit in Glasgow.

Madhura Joshi, an analyst at E3G, told Climate Home News the language “just maintains the status quo” and “bolder action” is needed from leaders. “Increasing renewables must be backed by phasing down fossil fuels – both are indispensable”, she added.

Rich countries sink billions into oil and gas despite Cop26 pledge

The outcome is a disappointment for India which has been advocating for this pledge since Cop27 last year. India is still largely reliant on coal for its electricity generation, so it has been attempting to put equal pressure on producers of oil and gas.

In his speech, Sultan Al-Jaber said a fossil fuel phase out is “essential” and “inevitable”. The spotlight is now on his team’s attempts to bridge divisions and garner support for it on the road to Dubai.

The G20 leaders also called for a steep increase in climate finance, moving “from billions to trillions of dollars globally” to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. A key driver of the scale-up will be reforms of multilateral development banks, which – the G20 believes – could free up $200 billion over the next decade.

The post G20 leaders strike renewables deal, stall on fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

Energy and climate ministers from the highly-influential G20 group took part in back-to-back meetings in India, in what was seen as a crucial stepping stone on the road to Cop28 in Dubai.

High hopes for a broad consensus on ambitious targets have been dashed first in Goa where energy ministers met, and then again in Chennai where climate ministers wrapped up talks just hours ago.

The meetings replayed familiar fights over fossil fuel phase-down and climate finance but also revealed new ones over a target of tripling renewable energy capacity.

That’s despite increasingly desperate appeals from Sultan al Jaber, the Cop28 chief, and Simon Stiell, the UN climate boss, who urged the world’s largest economies to show a sense of leadership. But that’s come to nought.

Nearly 10,000 miles away from India, tensions have also been running high in Kingston, Jamaica, where the little-known International Seabed Authority holds its annual meetings.

Four days into the week-long talks, governments have not yet been able to agree on an agenda.

At the heart of the conflict is the future of deep-sea mining, the controversial proposition to extract minerals from the bottom of the oceans.

A dozen of countries headed by Costa Rica, France and Chile want to officially discuss for the first time the possibility to pause any deep-sea mining projects while China and the island nation of Nauru have blocked the motion.

This week’s news:

• G20 divisions over key climate goals pile pressure on Cop28 hosts
• Germany plans to keep funding new gas projects overseas despite pledge
• Pressure grows on governments and banks to stop supporting Amazon oil and gas
• UN climate fund suspends project in Nicaragua over human rights concerns
• UN deep-sea mining talks deadlocked over agenda clash
• G20 climate talks fail to deliver emission cuts despite leadership pleas

The UN climate fund suspended payments to a $117 million forest protection project in Nicaragua over human rights concerns.

An independent review found the project could “cause or exacerbate” violent conflict between indigenous people and settlers. Worryingly, investigators also pointed out that the project had been approved even though it did not comply with the fund’s policies.

The Green Climate Fund said new evidence came to light subsequently and it will now make sure issues are resolved to its satisfaction.

But, as the fund continues to take information submitted from third parties in good faith, this may cause more headaches in the future.

Making decisions in this way leaves the fund “extremely vulnerable to policy and safeguards non-compliance that can result in huge reputational risks”, the investigators wrote in a damning report.

The post A rocky path to Cop28 – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

At a summit in Chennai, India, on Friday developed countries pushed for a commitment to peak emissions by 2025 and to cut them by 60% by 2035 (from 2019 levels) to limit global warming. This is what needs to happen to limit global warming to the critical figure of 1.5°C, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But developing nations opposed the demands, wanting to stick to the Paris Agreement that allowed different countries to tackle global warming in different ways depending on their circumstances, Reuters reported.

The outcome conflicts with a joint plea by the Cop28 boss Sultan al Jaber and the head of the UN climate body Simon Stiell urging G20 ministers to “leave Chennai on the right path and with a clear signal that the political will to tackle the climate crisis is there”.

G20 climate talks

The G20 is seen as a key forum to reach a consensus on targets ahead of UN climate summits. The group of nations is responsible for 85% of the world’s GDP and 80% of the world’s emissions. “The world needs its leaders to unite, act and deliver; and that must start with the G20”, said al Jaber and Stiell.

But, after days of intense discussions, the talks ended with the same outcome as the meeting of G20 energy ministers’ last week: no agreement and fractured relations.

Some European officials accused a “small group of countries” of trying to walk back previous climate pledges.

As fires rage around the world and temperatures break records, the #G20 has unfortunately failed to act as a group with the necessary urgency and clarity. In the face of an acute climate crisis, such a signal from the world's biggest emitters is unacceptable. 1/2

— Jennifer Morgan (@climatemorgan) July 28, 2023

“We were asked to make bold choices, to demonstrate courage, commitment and leadership. But we, collectively, failed to achieve that. We cannot be driven by the lowest common denominator, or by narrow national interests. We cannot allow the pace of change to be set by the slowest movers in the room”, the EU’s Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius said.

UN climate fund suspends project in Nicaragua over human rights concerns

Disagreements also resulted in the failure to produce a joint text at the end of the meeting. Instead, officials issued an outcome statement and a chair’s summary of the debate.

The summary said countries had “divergent views on the issues of energy transitions and how to reflect them in this document”.

Division ahead of Cop28

The talks in Chennai are a replay of the divisions on display last Saturday when G20 energy ministers sparred over commitments to cut the use of fossil fuels and set renewable energy targets.

Phasing down unabated fossil fuels by mid-century and tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030 are among the pillars of the plan outlined by Cop28 chief Sultan al Jaber.

Observers told Climate Home News they were surprised by the divisions over the renewables goal that had until then appeared to attract broad consensus.

G20 divisions over key climate goals pile pressure on Cop28 hosts

At last week’s meeting governments split into three camps, according to two sources with knowledge of the talks.

The Indian G20 presidency, supported by the EU and Germany, championed the higher-achieving target of tripling renewable energy capacity.

UN deep-sea mining talks deadlocked over agenda clash

A group of nations, including France, the US and South Korea, pushed to water down the commitment and broaden the language away from a specific focus on renewables and towards the inclusion of “low-carbon” solutions, including nuclear power and carbon capture technologies.

Hardliners like Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and South Africa opposed the inclusion of any renewable energy targets at all.

Last call

The spotlight is now on the Cop28 team headed by al Jaber. He has been under mounting pressure to bridge divisions and engineer some consensus ahead of the Dubai summit in November.

“The Cop28 Presidency will continue to call on all parties to make a clear commitment to this ambitious but achievable target at every opportunity in the lead-up to COP28″, a spokesperson for the team told Climate Home News.

The meeting of the G20 leaders in September will be one of the last opportunities on the calendar to show some progress toward achieving that goal.

The post G20 climate talks fail to deliver emission cuts despite leadership pleas appeared first on Climate Home News.

The summit was expected to lay down groundwork ahead of the Cop28 in Dubai. But it unearthed deep divisions between governments over some of the key issues at stake, piling pressure on the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to find a consensus around its vision for the climate summit in November.

Phasing down unabated fossil fuels by mid-century and tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030 are among the pillars of the plan outlined by Cop28 chief Sultan al Jaber.

Alden Meyer from climate think tank E3G said the Cop28 presidency “now has an even clearer sense of the fault lines among major countries” in reaching the outcome it is seeking for the climate summit and “must intensify its discussions with ministers and leaders in the weeks ahead”.

Under record heatwave, US and China “unstick” climate talks

A Cop28 spokesperson told Climate Home News that “tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030 is a critical enabler of keeping the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach”.

“The COP28 Presidency will continue to call on all parties to make a clear commitment to this ambitious but achievable target at every opportunity in the lead up to COP28”, they added.

G20 ministers could not strike a deal after days of intense discussions, during which some fossil-fuel-producing nations, led by Saudi Arabia, opposed those targets, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Disagreements also resulted in the failure to produce a joint text at the end of the meeting. Instead, officials issued an outcome statement and a chair’s summary of the debate.

Fossil fuel divisions

The document said some nations emphasized the “importance of making efforts towards phase down of unabated fossil fuels”, while others focused on the use of technologies to capture greenhouse gas emissions.

At the root of the divisions – the summary says – is the view that “fossil fuels currently continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix, eradication of energy poverty, and in meeting the growing energy demand”.

Frans Timmermans steps down from EU’s climate leadership

This is understood to reflect the position of countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, which had already blocked the inclusion of similar language at Cop27 last year.

At this year’s climate summit, the EU will push again for a global pledge to phase out unabated fossil fuels “well ahead of 2050” with support expected from a range of small island states and Latin American nations.

‘Disappointing’ renewables language

Further fault lines emerged over a pledge to triple renewable energy production by 2030. The summary said countries noted that there is a “need to scale up the deployment of renewable energy at an accelerated pace”. But the goal of tripling capacity within the next seven years was only mentioned in the context of “voluntary contributions”.

Major fossil fuel producers Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia have opposed this language, Reuters reported.

Dozens of oil & industry lobbyists attended secretive shipping emissions talks

Dave Jones, global insights lead at Ember, told Climate Home News the failure of the G20 to get behind this commitment is disappointing. “It shows that we will need to fight a lot harder than perhaps we thought to get these agreed at Cop28”, he said.

The G20 member countries together account for over three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, and a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate change.

The article was updated after publication to include a statement from the Cop28 team

The post G20 divisions over key climate goals pile pressure on Cop28 hosts appeared first on Climate Home News.

Making up around 80% of global emissions and also 80% of global GDP, the G20 has the responsibility and the capabilities to alter the course of our planet’s destiny.

The G20 ministers must demonstrate their leadership in placing the earth on track for a future within the 1.5°C temperature limit, which is resilient to the climate shocks already affecting the world’s most vulnerable communities.

Keeping 1.5°C in reach

We cannot afford an overshoot of 1.5°C

Accelerating our efforts to achieve a just transition and keep the temperature limit in reach is critical. We know that effective adaptation can save lives, contribute to sustainable development and support efforts to eradicate poverty and inequality.

However, there are limits to our ability to adapt that are already being reached, so we must step up our actions urgently. Loss and damage is occurring today in every region of the planet.

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report confirm that we must urgently and drastically scale up action and support to address climate change in this decade, accelerate efforts to respond to the impacts that are already happening, and prepare for them to get much worse.

We, as members of the High Ambition Coalition, are committed to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, including keeping alive the 1.5°C temperature limit. The scale and speed of the shifts that our world requires will be unprecedented. The outcome of the first Global Stocktake is an opportunity to course correct onto a path of a just and equitable transition and a much more resilient world.

Phasing out fossil fuels

We must work together to accelerate climate action now and to also set and meet higher targets. We must put an end to the narrative that climate action is the enemy of development. It is the only sustainable development pathway. We look to the G20 to lead the way.

Remaining within 1.5°C will require us to peak greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 at the latest and reduce them by 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. Revised 2030 Nationally Determined Contributions that align with the 1.5°C limit, and new 2035 NDCs that keep nations on that pathway, are crucial.

We will not stay within 1.5°C without reducing fossil fuel production. Further fossil fuel expansion risks rendering the eventual transition more expensive and disruptive to economies and societies.

Phasing out fossil fuels will not be easy, but humankind cannot afford to delay. We must bring the fossil fuel era to an end together, and agree a plan to do this at COP28.

We urge you, as leaders of the G20, to accelerate your efforts to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, to expand your cooperation and lead the way in phasing out all fossil fuels and in transitioning to a green sustainable energy future where access to energy is guaranteed for all.

Key climate actions

Renewable energy has the potential to replace fossil fuels, and to improve access to clean energy across the world, particularly the developing world. We also need a step change in energy efficiency, and to redirect fossil fuel subsidies as part of a just and equitable transition.

We must agree and deliver global goals on renewable energy and energy efficiency, as part of a 1.5°C-aligned global energy strategy. And we must ensure that all sectors, including international transport, reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.

Life saving adaptation is needed worldwide. Enabling national adaptation planning and implementation, and removing the barriers we see today, is key, and will require international cooperation and support, including the delivery of the COP26 call to double adaptation finance.

The climate crisis is causing loss and damage to occur today, and it will worsen. We must all support the swift operationalization and capitalization of loss and damage funding arrangements, and a fund for responding to loss and damage.

Boosting climate finance

Current climate finance flows fall far short of what is needed to meet our climate goals. Accelerated implementation, ambition, and support need to be mutually reinforcing processes to deliver the global transformations that are needed.

As the costs of the climate crisis continue to rise, a new financial system that meets the needs of the vulnerable is needed. We welcome the efforts at the Summit for a New Finance Pact to respond to interrelated climate, energy, health and economic crises and the need for finance to overcome them.

We support efforts to reform the international financial architecture to ensure that financial flows reach the trillions required for low carbon resilient development, and to ensure climate finance is accessible, and avoids trapping countries in further debt.

At the same time, each country should play its part to strengthen efforts to meet their Paris Agreement commitment to align all financial flows with low greenhouse gas climate resilient development.

We welcome the UN Secretary General’s efforts to accelerate ambition. G20 members should support this agenda, and join the ‘Climate Solidarity Pact’ that the Secretary General has called for.

All G20 members should demonstrate their commitment to living up to the Paris Agreement, Glasgow Climate Pact, and Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan, and to protecting the lives of us all. This is the most critical decade, and an opportunity for us to chart a path to a more sustainable, safe, and liveable future for all.

Signatories

H.E. Lenore Gewessler, Federal Minister for Climate Action, Environment, Energy,
Mobility, Innovation and Technology, Austria
H.E. Maria Heloisa Rojas Corradi, Environment Minister, Chile
H.E. Susana Muhamad, Minister of the Environment and Sustainable Development,
Colombia
H.E. Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Development Cooperation and Global Climate Policy,
Denmark
H.E. Ms. Cynthia Ehmes, Acting Secretary of the Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Emergency Management (DECEM), Federated States of Micronesia
H.E. Agnès Pannier-Runacher, Minister for the Energy Transition, France
H.E. Eamon Ryan, Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications,Ireland
H.E. Rob Jetten, Minister Climate and Energy Policy, the Netherlands
H.E. James Shaw, Minister of Climate Change, New Zealand
H.E. Steven Victor, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Environment, Palau
H.E. John Silk, Minister of Natural Resources and Commerce, Republic of the Marshall
Islands
H.E. Toeolesulusulu Cedric P S Schuster, Minister for Natural Resources and
Environment and Samoa Tourism Authority, Samoa
H.E. Romina Pourmokhtari, Minister for Climate and the Environment, Sweden
H.E. Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology, Geo
Hazards, Environment, Energy & National Disaster Management Office of the Republic
of Vanuatu

The post Open letter from 14 countries to G20: Safeguard a liveable future appeared first on Climate Home News.

The proposal is expected to be tabled at a G20 meeting this week at Nandi Hills summer retreat near India’s tech hub Bengaluru, where financial chiefs from the bloc have gathered for the first major event of India’s G20 presidency.

The development comes as World Bank President David Malpass held a discussion with Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Wednesday on addressing debt vulnerabilities, India’s finance ministry said.

“India is writing a proposal to form a group for reforms to World Bank,” one of the sources said, requesting anonymity as they are not authorised to speak to media.

“First step”: Reformers react to World Bank plan to free up climate spending

India’s finance and foreign ministries and the World Bank did not immediately respond to a Reuters’ request for comment.

“Democratisation of World Bank has been a long term line pursued by India and other countries. Differential financing terms for least developed and developing countries is desirable,” a second source said.

India’s chief economic adviser on Tuesday said reforms at multilateral development banks would be at the top of the agenda for discussion during the G20 financial chiefs meeting.

Sitharaman told Malpass on Wednesday that climate finance was a focus area during India’s G20 presidency and multilateral development banks “can play a major role in incentivising private capital, de-risking instruments, and providing greater concessional finance”.

World Bank chief to step down early after climate controversy

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is also expected to press for consensus on reforming multilateral development banks to vastly expand their lending to tackle pressing global challenges such as climate change and conflict.

The World Bank Group’s climate change action plan for 2021-2025 has set a target to deploy an average of 35% of the institution’s financing in support of climate action.

The Group said in September that it delivered a record $31.7 billion financing in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change, a 19% increase from the $26.6 billion all-time high in the previous fiscal year.

The World Bank has proposed lowering the loan to equity ratio of its main bank from 20% to 19%, freeing up about $4 billion a year to lend.

Refromers from the governments of Barbados and Germany told Climate Home that this was a good start but did not go far enough.

Last week, Malpass announced he would quit by June, following criticism of his climate scepticism.

The post India set to push for green World Bank reforms at G20 appeared first on Climate Home News.

As Fahad Saeed, a climate impacts scientist at Climate Analytics based in Islamabad, wrote this week, “colossal”, “mammoth” and “gigantic” don’t do justice to the scale of the disaster: 33 million people or one in seven Pakistanis are estimated to have been impacted. Over a million homes have been destroyed. The number of deaths has passed 1,200.

After a summer of extraordinary heat, this is yet another “wake-up call” for confronting the question: who will pay for climate damages that cannot be recovered or adapted to?

Pakistan emits less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions and, gripped by an already dire economic situation, needs financial support to recover from the damage it cannot pay for.

The Pakistani government estimates the cost of recovery in excess of $10 billion. Looming food shortages and expected mass internal displacements are likely to push up that number. The $1.1bn IMF bailout it received days after the flooding started appears a pittance against what is needed. The UN has appealed for $160 million in emergency funding.

Aid has been forthcoming from China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Uzbekistan and UAE among others. The US has pledged $30m, the UK committed $15m and Canada C$5m. But the difference with what is needed is gaping.

To plug the gap, developing countries have called for a bespoke funding facility for losses and damages caused by climate impacts. Despite rich nations increasingly recognising the need for funding, they have continued to reject the facility and objected to the issue being  put on the formal agenda at Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh this November.

The issue is likely to flare up from the very start of the climate summit in Egypt. The upcoming UN General Assembly is an opportunity for countries to put forward suggestions on how to break the logjam.

As chair of the G77, the largest group of developing countries in the climate talks, Pakistan is in a position to push for a loss and damage funding mechanism, based on first-hand experience of the gaps in the financial architecture.

While Pakistan continues to assess the damage and adds up the costs, G20 climate and environment ministers meeting in Bali, Indonesia, couldn’t even agree on a joint communique for tackling the worsening climate crisis. The outgoing and incoming Cop presidents have both warned the world’s largest economies now is not the time to backslide on their climate commitments.

In Gabon, where the Africa Climate Week has been taking place, another mechanism for increasing climate investment has been gaining momentum. African nations are showing growing interest in debt-for-climate swaps as a way to alleviate their debt burden while spurring climate investments. And financial institutions are paying attention.

This week’s stories…

• Collapse of G20 talks in Bali spark fears of ‘backtracking’ on climate pledges
• African nations eye debt-for-climate swaps as IMF takes an interest
• G20 Bali meeting highlights Indonesia’s weak climate action
• Nigeria plans gas-led transition to full energy access and net zero emissions
• Mystery solved: Chinese elephant trek exposes conservation failures
• UN seeks $160 million in emergency aid for Pakistan floods

… and comment 

• Pakistan floods must be a wake up call on climate action – Fahad Saeed, Climate Analytics
• Sri Lanka food crisis has its roots in the globalisation of the 1970s – Ahilan Kadirgamar, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka

The post Who will pay for Pakistan? – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

Draft texts seen by Climate Home News show G20 ministers clashed on language over Russia’s war on Ukraine, climate finance and whether limiting global warming to 1.5C or 2C should be the world’s climate target.

After talks broke down, Cop26 president Alok Sharma and incoming Cop27 president Sameh Shoukry both warned against countries backsliding on climate pledges.

Egypt’s foreign minister Shoukry said: “G20 members should play a leading a role in ensuring that the challenges created by the current global situation do not serve as a pretext or justification for the continued delay in the fulfilment of climate pledges or backtracking on hard-earned gains in the global fight against climate change.”

“It is concerning to see coal coming back as a source of energy in some parts of the world,” he said, adding that shortcomings on climate finance were worrying: “It is equally concerning that climate finance commitments, especially the $100 billion goal, are still lagging in implementation while the needs of developing countries continue to rise.”

Sharma, the British lawmaker who presided over last year’s climate talks, said: “It is certainly the case that what we did see was a number of countries backsliding on the commitments that they made in Paris [in 2015] and in Glasgow [last year]”. Neither Sharma nor Shoukry singled out any country.

One minister in attendance describing the meeting to Climate Home said: “Nothing happened in Bali. Failure. Weak presidency.”

African nations eye debt-for-climate swaps as IMF takes an interest

Climate and environment ministers held a one-day meeting on Wednesday and energy ministers convened on Thursday.

Neither group was able to agree on a joint communique. Instead, a “Bali Compact” is expected to be published.

Climate Home has spoken to four sources in Bali and seen documents which suggest both groups of ministers faced similar divides.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Indonesian climate minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar began the climate ministerial with a plea to “build bridges not walls”. Italy’s climate envoy Alessandro Modiano called for the ministerial communique to include language which “reflects the unjustifiable and unprovoked Russian war of aggression against Ukraine”.

A draft text stated that “some members noted that existing challenges to address climate change and biodiversity loss have been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.” But that was never going to fly with Russia and the text wasn’t agreed.

A similar discussion among energy ministers remained unresolved. Proposed language holding the war in Ukraine responsible for soaring energy prices and a global economic downturn was backed by G7 nations but opposed by emerging nations, including Russia, according to a source.

Climate finance

The draft texts show there was disagreement about how strongly to criticise rich countries’ failure to meet a promise to deliver $100 billion in climate finance to developing countries by 2020.

There was further disagreement on how much emphasis to place on “loss and damage”, referring to damages caused by climate impacts that cannot be recovered or adapted to.

Developing countries have called for bespoke loss and damage finance, paid by nations most responsible for causing climate change. Wealth countries have so far resisted. 

G20 Bali meeting highlights Indonesia’s weak climate action 

Ambition 

A long-running dispute over whether to emphasise limiting global warming “well below 2C” or to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels rambled on. Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to limit global temperature rise to “well below 2C” and “pursue efforts” to limit it to 1.5C.

A second source at the talks told Climate Home that China and India had pushed for an emphasis on 2C, with China’s representatives describing it as more “scientifically feasible”.

At Cop26, all countries agreed to “revisit and strengthen” their 2030 climate targets by the end of 2022. Since then, few countries have done so.

A proposal to repeat the pledge, adding in a 23 September deadline for inclusion in a UN synthesis report, didn’t find consensus.

Meanwhile, India pushed for language on a ‘global net zero’ goal. It was opposed by Germany and the EU which argued it distracted from action in the 2020s, the source said.

Comment: Pakistan floods must be a wake-up call on climate action

Square brackets 

A third source in Bali told Climate Home that Indonesia, which has lost nearly 20% of its tree cover since 2000, led a push against strong language on deforestation and land degradation.

There was no agreement on language to reduce methane emission despite more than 100 countries signing on to a global methane pledge at Cop26 to cut collective methane emissions 30% by 2030. China, India and Russia have not signed up.

The text further proposed language on cleaning up the shipping industry, which remained bracketed, meaning there was no agreement.

The draft text included a proposal to “eliminate any unilateral and cross-border measures and obstacles that are not conducive to addressing the climate change challenges” – a reference to the carbon levy adopted by the EU on imported goods from countries with lower environmental standards.

China, India, Brazil and South Africa have previously called the EU’s planned carbon border tax “unilateral” and “discriminatory”.

In response, the EU proposed alternative text, promoting “dialogue in the design and implementation of domestic policy measures, consistent with international rules”.

The post Collapse of G20 talks in Bali spark fears of ‘backtracking’ on climate pledges appeared first on Climate Home News.

To succeed, both summits need to have a golden thread of finance commitments and reform running through them to address climate change. Climate change is the defining issue of this generation of world leaders; finance the most potent fuel for tackling it. 

While Cop26 delivered some good outcomes, it also dropped some balls: a failure to properly tackle loss and damage and a last-minute deal to weaken coal commitments undermined trust.

Next year, Indonesia and Germany will need to mobilise trillions in climate finance to provide all countries with the resources they need to tackle the climate crisis.  Here are four ways to deliver.

1. Financial support for the loss and damage caused by climate change. That should start with understanding what’s achievable outside of UN processes and how world leaders summits can fill in the gaps. Germany should use its G7 muscle to bring round the US and France – two countries most reluctant to make meaningful progress on finance mechanisms for loss and damage. 
2. Build on the potential that glimmered at Cop. We saw commitments to help South Africa finance the transition away from coal. Now, we need more processes, plans and platforms like it. We saw Italian prime minister Mario Draghi call for multilateral development banks – non-commercial banks set up to support development – to play a stronger role in mobilising the trillion for climate needs. Barbados PM Mia Mottley set out a vision for special drawing rights to help countries finance the transition. Leaders should agree to make these reserve assets available to all countries, not just those in IMF programmes, to reflect the fact that climate change impact are largely outside of governments’ control. They should also look at new SDR issuance to address the vast amounts needed for climate transition.
3. Accelerate climate-friendly infrastructure development, specifically zero carbon and resilient infrastructure in emerging and developing countries. Leaders should channel the $130 trillion promised at Cop26 by the private sector into these assets. Meanwhile, the integrity of private sector commitments must be guaranteed to avoid greenwashing.
4. Set up a taskforce to pick up the pace of financial action. The leaders of Germany, Indonesia, Italy and the UK should work together on reforms to the global financial architecture such as making the sovereign debt architecture fairer and more functional and changes to debt sustainability assessments that recognise the need for climate action. Countries should work together to align standards, policy, regulation and mobilise finance to close the 1.5C and resilience gaps.

 The G20’s efforts won’t come to fruition without the G7’s money and influence. The world’s biggest economies are central to public finance, and major shareholders of development banks. Those most powerful countries need to build an open framework to mobilise money – not exclusive climate clubs that only protect them. 

Recent events in Germany and Indonesia should give both presidencies the motivation and mettle to secure results: cars barrelled down German streets this summer in catastrophic floods that climate change made up to nine times more likely. In Indonesia, the fatal fallout from Cyclone Seroja revealed the country’s huge vulnerability to climate catastrophe.

If Cop27 is a success a year from now, it won’t just be because of what happens in Egypt. It will be because of the G7 and G20 leaders’ engagement and agreement on a new “trillion vision” for long term finance and climate needs. It’s only progress like this that will move us closer to a safer world and show that those most responsible for the climate crisis are finally working together.

Luca Bergamaschi is co-founder of the Italian think tank ECCO, working together with Governments, philanthropy and civil society organisations to accelerate climate action in Italy, Europe and globally. 

The post Finance must be the golden thread for climate diplomacy in 2022 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The meeting is key to providing momentum for the UN Cop26 climate talks, which begin on 31 October and last for two weeks.

The Italian presidency is hoping to land a statement that commits the world’s largest emitters to accelerate actions this decade in line with limiting global heating to 1.5C – the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement.

For Rome, that requires signalling the end of unabated coal power both at home and internationally.

Excerpts from one of the latest draft statements seeks a commitment to “achieving largely decarbonised power systems in the 2030s”. This draft was prepared by the Italian presidency and seen by Climate Home News and is likely to be changed.

The draft includes a commitment to “put an end to the provision of international public finance for newly built unabated coal power by the end of 2021”.

The draft text states that countries  “will do our utmost to avoid building new unabated coal power generation capacity taking national circumstances into account with a view to accelerating the transition away from coal to meet timeframes aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement”.

But getting behind a coal exit has proved contentious among national officials. Climate Home News understand the language of the text is being strongly resisted by some coal users and producers, including Australia.

To close 1.5C gap, countries face call for another round of climate pledges by 2023

Discussions on coal are expected to reach leaders level on Sunday afternoon – a sign of how fast the issue of coal phase out has climbed up the political agenda in recent months. On Friday, the Italian presidency has been working on a new version of the text to move countries closer to a resolution.

While observers are hopeful that countries can at least agree to end the overseas financing of unabated coal-fired power plants, Climate Home understands this is meeting some countries’ red lines – with an agreement on avoiding building new coal plants at home facing an even steeper climb.

The issue has split the G20 between those countries ready to phase out coal and those defending the fossil fuel. China and India were in the latter camp during a meeting of climate and energy ministers in July.

Since then, president Xi Jinping announced at the UN general assembly in September that China would stop building coal power plants in other countries – effectively drying up much of the international finance for coal.

Campaigners are still expecting more details from Beijing over whether the announcement covers existing projects, citing analysis that more than 13GW of announced deals and planned projects could still go ahead.

The G20 statement could be a moment for China to signal greater ambition after it merely formalised existing commitments in its updated 2030 climate plan to the UN on Thursday.

Comment: Treating Russia as a climate change spoiler undermines global action

Both Japan and South Korea vowed to end their financing of overseas coal projects earlier this year. Last week, a group of OECD countries including Japan, South Korea and Turkey agreed on an immediate ban for financial support for international coal-fired power plants.

And there is likely to be movement in Indonesia. Prime minister Boris Johnson told the UK parliament that president Joko Widodo agreed “to bring forward the abolition of coal use in Indonesia to 2040”.

But while Jakarta might move on coal, it has shown resistance to language “committing” countries to carbon neutrality, according to a source with knowledge of the discussions.

A glimpse of the text shared in a video by Argentinian official Jorge Argüello on Friday suggests countries still couldn’t agree on whether to include a date for “achieving global net zero green house gas emissions” with the 2050 date still appearing in brackets and subject to negotiation.

Ahead of the meeting, Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, told reporters that the outcome of the G20 leaders’ summit should not precipitate conclusions about the outcome of the Cop26 talks.

That’s because developing countries are not in the room in Rome “to push the ambition,” she said. While at the G20 “it’s a group of richer countries that decide. It’s the whole of the world who is decision at Cop26 and that is a whole different question.”

The post Dispute over coal exit set to dominate G20 leaders’ summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a statement following a meeting in Venice, Italy, this weekend, ministers agreed that the “wide set of tools” to cut emissions and create a more sustainable economy should include, “if appropriate, the use of carbon pricing mechanisms and incentives, while providing targeted support for the poorest and the most vulnerable”.

French finance minister Bruno Le Maire told reporters after the meeting: “We have been pushing very hard to have these two words… introduced into a G20 communique.”

Ronan Palmer, of think tank E3G, told Climate Home News the statement “raised the stakes” among G20 countries to either adopt a carbon pricing mechanism or enforce policy measures that would achieve a similar outcome of reducing sectoral emissions.

Some form of carbon pricing is being considered in Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey.

But Australia, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the US do not have a nationwide price on carbon, nor are they formally considering it.

Comment: EU must use its carbon border tax to support a just transition around the world

It comes as the EU plans to impose carbon tariffs on imports from countries with lower climate standards. The European Commission is due to unveil its proposal on Wednesday.

Developing countries have previously complained the levy would unfairly penalise their economies by making their exports uncompetitive. And the US has described the measure as a “last resort”.

The threat of the proposal is spurring discussions in developing countries on how to make polluters pay at home and avoid the EU levy.

“There is a global willingness to talk about taxation issues that we have not seen before,” Palmer said.

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

This is the case in Indonesia, where plans for a carbon tax are currently being discussed, said Putra Adhiguna, Jakarta-based energy economics and policy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

A draft bill for the revision of the country’s tax law, published last month, includes a carbon tax rate of roughly $5.25/t CO2e.

Adhiguna said the proposal was still being evaluated by the government and was unlikely to come into force before late 2022, when Indonesia chairs the next G20 cycle.

But, he added, as industries struggle to recover from the coronavirus pandemic, the implementation of the tax will be difficult without support from richer nations to accelerate the energy transition in Indonesia.

“Carbon pricing is an idea that originated in the developed world” and implementing it will require support for the most vulnerable, he said.

“Otherwise, this is going to be a unilateral imposition of developed world policy. I am worried about a public backlash against the climate movement in developing countries.”

Argentina pitches green debt swap, with the Pope’s blessing

Luca Bergamaschi, co-founder of Italian think tank Ecco, agrees this is a critical question.

Carbon pricing has to be implemented “without creating negative social effects”, he said.

Europe’s own journey with carbon pricing, since it adopted the world’s first international emissions trading system in 2005, hasn’t been plain sailing. The policy is just starting to work in Europe after a decade of stalling, Bergamaschi said.

In 2018, the French government’s carbon tax led to a hike in the price of petrol and diesel and sparked the “yellow vest” protests.

“Carbon price so far hasn’t been a transformational policy for political and social reasons,” Bergamaschi said. It has failed to take into account what matters most climate politics: who stands to win and lose, vested interests opposing more robust action and the change in political leadership and priorities.

“Countries like Indonesia and South Africa are very wary of putting an additional burden on workers, industries and communities in an already vulnerable situation.”

Comment: G20 ministers must scale up climate finance in solidarity with vulnerable countries

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is proposing a carbon price floor agreement between major emitters as an alternative way to spur decarbonisation.

Managing director Kristalina Georgieva said this would be “more effective” than the EU’s carbon border tax.

A “pragmatic design” for a carbon price floor could allow countries to set different minimum prices based on development levels and national policy approaches, leaving countries flexibility to adopt a carbon tax, sectoral regulations or create an emission trading scheme “that achieve the same outcome,” she said.

The post G20 backs carbon pricing, ‘raising stakes’ among emerging economies appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the opening press conference of the IMF’s spring meeting, Kristalina Georgieva said income level was the primary consideration when disbursing international finance.

“But there are other sources of vulnerabilities, for example high vulnerability to climate shocks. And therefore the international community should look into other factors of vulnerability as we think of appropriate ways to support developing countries,” she said.

Her comments came after G20 finance ministers agreed to extend a debt repayment holiday for poor countries beyond June to December 2021.

A total of 73 low income countries are eligible for the temporary suspension of debt service payments owed to official bilateral creditors. This excludes most debt-laden middle-income and emerging economies.

Ministers declined to expand the initiative to middle-income countries such as small island states in the Caribbean. There, nations are facing ballooning debt levels as the costs of Covid-19 and climate impacts mount and tourism revenues plummet.

UK pledges to make scaling up adaptation finance a priority at G7 summit

In a statement published following the meeting, the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) said the extension of the debt repayment pause “only goes some way to solving the huge debt issues Covid-19 and climate change have served up to island nations”.

Aosis has previously called on G20 members to widen the debt service suspension initiative and consider outright debt relief for highly vulnerable and indebted small island states.

“More than half of the world’s small island states don’t even qualify for this debt relief, due to outdated and illogical criteria,” said ambassador Aubrey Webson of Antigua and Barbuda and Aosis chair.

“We are squeezed on all sides, yet due to the arbitrary designation of ‘middle-income’ status, many of us are told that we do not need assistance. This is ludicrous in a year when our debt-to-GDP ratios are beyond maxed out and when even in the best of times, a hurricane can easily wipe out an entire year’s GDP in one fell swoop,” he said.

Belize, for example, was locked out of the scheme despite facing debt levels of 126% of its GDP.

“As small open economies, we see vulnerability as an inextricable combination of climate and economic vulnerabilities,” Christopher Coye, a minister of state in Belize’s finance ministry, previously told Climate Home News.

Aosis called for the debt repayment holiday to be extended beyond 2021 until a “fairer, more inclusive system” is agreed.

South Africa sets out to tighten 2030 emissions target

An assessment by the World Bank and the IMF, seen by the New York Times, described the combination of debt, climate change and environmental degradation as representing “a systemic risk to the global economy” that “exacerbates climate and nature vulnerabilities”.

Georgieva said she was concerned about middle-income countries that have entered the crisis with high debt levels and whose limited fiscal space has meant they haven’t been able to invest in a resilience and a green recovery.

“Middle-income tourism-dependent countries are in a very difficult position. We are of course concerned how we rally more support so they can be [on a] more prudent path to recovery,” she said.

UN secretary general António Guterres told a press conference last week additional liquidity in the economy was urgently needed to support the most vulnerable countries. “We cannot walk head on, eyes wide open, into a debt crisis that is foreseeable and preventable,” he said.

G20 finance ministers have backed calls for the IMF to issue $650 billion of special drawing rights (SDRs) – an IMF reserve asset that has only been issued four times before to respond to crises.

The cash is traditionally allocated according to the size of countries’ economies. Vulnerable nations have urged richer countries to donate or redistribute some of their SDRs, to help them afford vaccines and a green recovery.

Rare IMF relief offers a hope of green recovery to debt-laden nations

Georgieva said the IMF was working on a proposal for issuing the crisis funds to present to its executive board, which is made up of member states, “some time in June”. In parallel, she said, the IMF was “identifying viable options for using SDRs from wealthier members to support our more vulnerable countries”.

The IMF has received a number of proposals for doing so. This includes calls for ensuring middle-income countries that have been locked out of the debt payment suspension scheme receive more support. Argentina and Mexico are among the nations calling for urgent relief.

Georgieva said the IMF will assess these ideas and ensure they are “defined on the basis of contributing most effectively to the needs of vulnerable countries”.

“We will discuss with the members whether there is enough support to expand the concessionality of re-allocated SDRs beyond low-income countries. How we define these options is work to be done intensively in the next months,” she said.

The post Climate vulnerability should be factored into debt relief, says IMF head appeared first on Climate Home News.

The EU agreed to “endorse” Riyadh’s “circular carbon economy” concept in a joint statement, despite objecting that it shifts the emphasis away from cutting emissions to unproven carbon capture, reuse and storage models.

In return, it reinstated language dating back to 2009 on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. The final text said: “We reaffirm our joint commitment on medium term rationalization and phasing-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, while providing targeted support for the poorest.”

Mention of fossil fuel subsidies had been opposed by Saudi Arabia and was left out of an earlier joint declaration of energy ministers.

G20 countries have collectively committed $235 billion to fossil fuels in coronavirus recovery measures, according to analysis from Energy Policy Tracker. That amounts to 55% of energy-related spending, compared to 35% on clean energy.

UN chief Antonio Guterres noted the disparity on Twitter, saying “fossil fuel subsidies should have no place in any rational Covid-19 recovery plan”.

As of September, the rescue packages of #G20 countries have committed 50% more funding to support fossil fuels than to low-carbon energy.

Fossil fuel subsidies should have no place in any rational #COVID19 recovery plan.

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) November 22, 2020

Canada sets out to enshrine 2050 net zero goal in law

Analysts said the display of unity at the Saudi-chaired summit set the groundwork for progress to be made when Donald Trump exits the White House and Italy hosts the G20 next year.

“Given the history of Saudi Arabia on the climate issue over the years and the nihilistic approach of Donald Trump towards multilateral diplomacy, expectations for this G20 summit were understandably quite low,” said independent consultant Alden Meyer, of Performance Partners. “The leaders statement didn’t signal any major steps forward on climate and energy issues, but despite Trump, it did reaffirm the need for collaborative action to confront the climate crisis.”

That “provides a solid basis for action by the incoming Italian G20 presidency, which will not have to deal with a dysfunctional and confrontational US president,” Meyer added.

Alex Scott, a senior policy adviser at E3G, said “While the outcomes of this G20 summit itself may not have been the most progressive on the climate front, there was a clear priority given to climate in many of the speeches. There’s been a mindset change around how leaders recognise the need to improve their climate policy particularly over the last few months since we’ve seen the net zero dominos starting to fall.”

The Saudi hosts promoted the circular carbon economy (CCE) approach at a side event, where it was praised by Japanese and Chinese leaders. Australia, India, the US and Italy (as the next G20 host) also attended.

Eddy Perez, international policy lead at Climate Action Network (CAN) Canada, told Climate Home: “The fact that [CCE] is in the text and the word ‘endorse’ has been used, tells you that the Saudis really fought hard to get that in there.”

In order to get the US to join the statement, it used language pioneered at last year’s Osaka summit which places responsibilities on all “signatories to the Paris Agreement”. This includes all the G20 nations except the US, which officially left the pact earlier this month. President-elect Biden has pledged to re-join the deal on his first day in office.

Perez said that Trump “did not disrupt” the summit as he has in previous years. The outgoing US president attended some of the meetings but was pictured playing golf during a pandemic preparedness event. In the circular carbon economy side event, he defended his environmental record, attacked the Paris Agreement and boasted that the US was the biggest oil and gas producer in the world.

Correction: The figures for the G20 countries’ fossil fuel bailouts were corrected on 24/11/20.

The post Saudis and Europeans reach compromise on climate as G20 projects unity appeared first on Climate Home News.

A joint statement from the group of major economies on Monday focused on stabilising energy markets disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. After a two-day virtual meeting, ministers pledged to collaborate “to encourage dialogue to help mobilize public and private investment in various energy sectors”.

Discussion of energy efficiency and renewables was put in the context of a “circular carbon economy”, with equal weight given to reusing and removing carbon dioxide from the air.

Saudi energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman insisted when he set out the circular carbon strategy earlier this year: “Carbon is not the enemy.”

The G20 communique described it as “a holistic, integrated, inclusive, and pragmatic approach to managing emissions that can be applied reflecting country’s priorities and circumstances”.

Countries promise green recovery at Japanese virtual summit, keep quiet on fossil fuel bailout

Climate campaigners criticised the emphasis on commercially unproven technology, saying it was a way for oil-rich Saudi Arabia to justify unsustainable use of fossil fuels.

“Circular carbon economy is clearly a Saudi priority,” said Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, G20 campaigner at Climate Action Network (Can). “While the concept looks noble, the idea puts a particular attention to the use of the carbon capture use and storage, geoengineering practices that are heavily criticized by civil society due to the yet unknown environmental impacts and the distraction it creates from the real solution, which is reducing emissions.”

Eddy Perez from Can Canada told Climate Home this year’s G20 chair Saudi Arabia was “stuck in the past and unable to accept the green and just transition [to clean energy] that is already well under way”.

He added: “At a moment where decisive action is expected from leading economies to respond to the health, economic, social, climate and biodiversity crises, Saudi Arabia has managed to make the G20 irrelevant and disconnected from the reality of this year.”

Ivetta Gerasimchuk, of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said the G20 has become less and less ambitious since it started hosting summits in 2008. The energy ministers’ joint statement, she said, “just lists what countries are doing anyway, rather than what they should be doing”.

Saudi Arabia censors fossil fuel subsidy discussion as G20 host

Arab News, which is closely linked to the Saudi government, reported some European countries pressed for a stronger stance against fossil fuels but the Saudis’ “more inclusive stance on hydrocarbon resources” was supported by Russia and the USA.

At G20 meetings on agriculture and the environment, ministers failed to agree a joint statement due to similar divides over climate change.

Commenting on this, Germany’s agriculture minister Julia Klöckner, said by email: “The younger generations expect the agriculture ministers to speak out about climate change. No other sector has been hit as hard by climate change as the agricultural sector.”

According to Energy Policy Tracker, G20 nations have committed $206 billion to sectors linked with fossil fuel production and consumption in coronavirus stimulus packages. Only $137bn has been earmarked for sectors linked with the production and consumption of clean energy.

Since 2009, the G20 has repeatedly pledged to remove fossil fuel subsidies. That was not mentioned in the latest statement.

In July, Climate Home revealed that the Saudi authorities were uncomfortable with the word “subsidies” and sought to remove it from policy briefs produced by ostensibly independent research groups. They preferred a phrase with no established definition – “fossil fuel incentives”.

The G20 leaders’ summit will be held online in November 2020 before Italy takes over the G20 Presidency. Perez said he “look[s] forward to an Italian G20 presidency who will seize its opportunity to preside over the forum representing 80% of the global economy to present a much more relevant, ambitious and safer vision for a world responding to multiple subsequent crises.”

The post Saudi-led G20 energy statement backs fossil fuel bailouts appeared first on Climate Home News.

The move seems to go against a 2009 commitment by the club of major economies to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption”. Leaders have reaffirmed this pledge at every summit in the past decade.

Sources close to the G20 preparations told Climate Home News the Saudi authorities were uncomfortable with the term “subsidy” and asked for the word to be removed from policy proposals.

Instead of “fossil fuel subsidies” ­– an established concept in the energy literature – they inserted “fossil fuel incentives” – a term with no commonly agreed definition.

The edits came in the final stages of Think20, which engages researchers and academics from the international community to thrash out policy recommendations on a range of G20 priorities. Their work is meant to be independent from national governments.

Researchers expressed concern the term “incentives” would muddy the waters at a time when countries need to move away from supporting coal, oil and gas and accelerate the transition to clean energy.

“The word incentives takes the idea of fossil fuel subsidy in a very different direction,” one person close to the process told CHN. “Let’s make sure that we are not defining loopholes for the continued use of fossil fuels.”

A spokesperson for the G20 secretariat told CHN the “independent participation of engagement groups in G20 discussions is important for the Saudi G20 Presidency and we are fully committed to an independent, open, transparent and inclusive process”.

Gas curse: Mozambique’s multi-billion dollar gamble on LNG

Last week, UN secretary general António Guterres ramped up his rhetoric urging leaders to end fossil fuel subsidies and use the recovery to the pandemic to accelerate the clean energy transition.

“Fossil fuels are increasingly risky business with fewer takers,” he said during an International Energy Agency conference. “We need to stop wasting money on fossil fuel subsidies and place a price on carbon.”

Although definitions of what constitutes a “subsidy” varies between global institutions, the term “fossil fuel subsidy” is widely used to describe any government support for oil, gas or coal activities that lowers the price paid by consumers, raises the price received by producers or lowers the cost of production.

“The definition of a subsidy has always been a problem for Saudi Arabia,” Tom Moerenhout, an associate at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) told CHN.

As the world’s largest oil exporter, with low production costs, Saudi Arabia has been able to sell its oil below international price benchmarks.

At home, the Kingdom provides cheap energy to its citizens as part of a social contract whereby Saudis cannot choose their leaders but benefit from generous welfare provision.

The Kingdom denies subsiding petrol, arguing it is selling its oil at an “internal price” above production costs.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

In recent years, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salaman has been leading efforts to diversify the economy and move the country away from its oil dependency. To pay for an ambitious economic programme known as “Vision 2030”, Riyadh has embarked on an energy subsidy reform, raising energy prices closer to world market prices.

“Saudi Arabia has always been concerned not to destroy oil demand and keep its market share,” said Glada Lahn, a senior energy and resources research fellow at Chatham House. Saving a major domestic crisis, “their easy-to-produce oil has a longer shelf life than most”.

As G20 host, Saudi Arabia has been using its platform to promote the idea of a “circular carbon economy” which would reduce emissions but still allow for fossil fuel production by using technologies such as carbon capture, utilization and storage, and hydrogen.

Lahn described it as an attempt to “clean up the image of oil and gas”. “There is going to be much more scrutiny on the support for fossil fuels globally and the Saudi government is desperate for foreign investment,” she said. But the plan should not be promoted as a one-size fits all, she added.

In the 10 years since the G20 promised to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”, limited progress has been made to meet the goal. The latest expert stocktake shows G20 countries subsidised coal, oil and gas to the tune of $150 billion in 2016, including both production and consumption subsidies.

In 2019, government support for fossil fuels totalled $478 billion in 77 countries, according to more recent analysis by the OECD and the IEA. While consumer subsidies had fallen slightly, the data showed a 38% rise in support for the production of fossil fuels across 44 advanced and emerging economies compared with 2018.

Big nations aid fossil fuels more than clean energies amid pandemic, researchers find

And despite talks of a “green recovery”, the coronavirus pandemic has done little to reverse the trend. A study by 14 research groups found G20 nations collectively spent at least $151 billion on supporting fossil fuels in their Covid-19 recovery packages, with only 20% of the relief conditional on green requirements.

In contrast, the world’s richest economies committed $89 billion to clean energy. The findings will be regularly updated on the Energy Policy Tracker, which launched on Wednesday.

As part of efforts to weather the economic impacts of the pandemic, Riyadh announced a $240 million package to provide electricity price relief for commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors.

“Money is not going in the right direction,” said Ivetta Gerasimchuk, an energy expert at IISD who led the Energy Policy Tracker project.

“The Covid-19 crisis and governments’ responses to it are intensifying the trends that existed before the pandemic struck. National and subnational jurisdictions that heavily subsidised the production and consumption of fossil fuels in previous years have once again thrown lifelines to oil, gas, coal, and fossil fuel-powered electricity.”

The story was updated on 15/07/20 to include the findings of the Energy Policy Tracker. 

The post Saudi Arabia censors fossil fuel subsidy discussion as G20 host appeared first on Climate Home News.

The draft communique, seen by Climate Home News, follows a G20 environment ministerial last week in which all countries but the US reaffirmed their commitment to implementing the Paris Agreement.

The document shows efforts from Japan to build consensus with the US at a time when the two countries are negotiating a trade deal. But other G20 members, including the European Union, are expected to push for more ambitious language even at the expense of US endorsement.

Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, G20 leaders have been unable to reach an agreement on climate and have instead adopted a “G19+1” approach, with the US reiterating its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in a separate statement in the text.

“What is different from previous years is the degree to which Japan is caving in to the US,” said Luca Bergamaschi, senior associate at think-tank E3G. “To have a single G20 position [on climate] would be farcical because there is no consensus.”

Four countries have declared climate emergencies, yet give billions to fossil fuels

The text may change before its release at the meeting, which opens in Osaka on Friday. The draft stops short of fully endorsing the implementation of the Paris Agreement, instead welcoming progress made in establishing its rulebook and anticipating “successful outcomes” at the next round of UN climate talks in December.

This is unlike last year’s G20 communique, in which all members except the US agreed that the Paris Agreement was “irreversible”.

The draft text does not mention the decarbonisation of the global economy nor efforts to limit global temperature rise to avoid runaway climate change.

Instead, it recognises the need for “addressing global challenges, including climate change” and calls for “all available technologies” to be considered.

“This is quite dangerous,” said Bergamaschi, adding it opened the door for countries like the US and Japan to promote so-called “clean coal” technologies. “It puts [all technologies] on the same level and that makes the text quite problematic.”

Climate news straight to your inbox? Sign up here

Japan is one of the largest providers of public finance for coal technology exports, spending on average $5.2 billion a year, according to a recent report by the Overseas Development Institute.

Although G20 members committed in 2009 to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies, the report found their total subsidies to coal-fired power plants nearly tripled from an annual average of $17.2 billion 2013-14 to $47.3 billion 2016-17.

Campaigners in Japan are organising protests to coincide with the opening of the G20 summit on Friday. Kimiko Hirata, director of Kiko Network Japan, accused President Shinzo Abe of being “full of hot air” when it comes to his pledges on climate action.

Last week, major Japanese companies including Sony and Fujitsu called on the government to source half of its electricity from renewables by 2030 – doubling its current target of 22-24%.

Ahead of the start of the summit, Japan’s cabinet approved a plan to achieve carbon neutrality “at the earliest possible time” after 2050, setting out to innovate in areas such as hydrogen and carbon dioxide capture and utilisation.

We’ve changed our rules on republication. Please read them here

The post Japan waters down G20 climate commitment ahead of leaders’ summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a statement together with UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, foreign ministers of the two countries promised to work together to put the international climate pact into action.

It struck a markedly greener tone than the ambivalent draft G20 declaration circulated ahead of the meeting. Climate Home News understands that text is still open for negotiation as talks between the 20 major economies enter their final day.

Ministers Jean-Yves Le Drian and Wang Yi said they hoped the G20 summit would “give a political impetus to the success of Cop24”, the UN climate negotiations starting in Katowice, Poland on Sunday.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

The deadline is looming to finalise the rulebook for the Paris Agreement, a complex and detailed task due at the end of the two-week conference.

The joint statement called for “balanced, comprehensive, robust, and operational” rules that “respect the letter and the spirit of the Paris Agreement”.

Citing the stark message of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, it said “there are only a few years left, far less than a generation, to make the transition towards a sustainable and ecological civilization a reality”.

A summit to be hosted by Guterres at the UN’s New York headquarters next September will be “a defining moment to accelerate action,” they added.

At a G20 meeting dominated by trade tension between China and the US, Beijing was using climate change to build bridges with other global powers, said Li Shuo, a policy analyst from Greenpeace East Asia.

“From the Chinese perspective, it highlights continued high-level political interest to leverage the climate and broader environmental agenda for geopolitical gain,” he said.

India’s prime minister Narendra Modi also discussed climate change with Guterres in Buenos Aires, according to a tweet from his account, including through his pet project the International Solar Alliance.

Excellent meeting with Mr. @antonioguterres, @UN Secretary-General.

There were wide-ranging deliberations on various global issues.

We talked about mitigating climate change and India’s efforts in this regard through initiatives like the International Solar Alliance. pic.twitter.com/NIQZS671gI

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 30, 2018

Additional reporting from Karl Mathiesen.

Republish this article

The post France and China declare joint climate commitment at G20 appeared first on Climate Home News.

What happens in Argentina is crucial for the climate. The economies of the G20 account for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions – and if these countries don’t move on climate change, we can expect warming of up to 4C by 2100, a catastrophic proposition for our planet and its inhabitants.

The recent report on 1.5C by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us that there is even a big difference in climate impacts between warming of 1.5C and 2C, let alone 4C. This 1.5C goal was the limit set in the 2015 Paris Agreement – but we can only get there if the G20 economies halve their emissions by 2030.

Yet climate change barely features on the agenda in Buenos Aires, despite the warnings of the impact that climate change will have on the global economy, development and global security. Inaction could lead to stranded assets of $20 trillion of upstream energy and power generation – impacts that could be minimized if capital is shifted from carbon-intensive investment.

Argentina accused of caving to Trump by dropping carbon price from G20 talks

In 2017, global economic losses from natural disasters and man-made catastrophes were the highest-ever – amounting to $337 billion. And G20 countries are all vulnerable, particularly the emerging economies of India, Indonesia and Brazil, who are the most exposed to the impacts of climate change.

In our “Brown to Green” analysis of the progress the G20 is making toward a low carbon economy, released this week, we forensically examine the progress of each of these economies, with 80 indicators on decarbonisation, climate policies, finance and vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

Put together by 14 organisations in more than half the G20 countries, many of them emerging economies, the analysis gives us the kind of transparency that we need to be able to properly assess this progress – and track it over time (this is the fourth iteration of this report).

The results are a mixed bag. There are no really clear leaders: while there are pockets of hope, the overall picture is not exactly encouraging. Emissions are again on the rise, after a slight dip in recent years. Whether this is a trend has yet to be seen.

These countries are still clinging to fossil fuels, which account for, on average, around 82% of the G20’s overall energy mix. G20 countries provided $147 billion subsidies to coal, oil and gas in 2016 – an enormous increase from US$75 billion in 2007, although they did drop 2015-16. But apart from two countries – France and Canada – the G20 overwhelmingly spent more on fossil fuel subsidies in 2016 than the income they got from carbon pricing in 2017.

This kind of independent analysis is important for a number of reasons: under the Paris Agreement there is no mechanism for comparing action, nor for measuring the “bottom up” approach of government pledges against the only agreed “top down” goal – the 1.5C warming limit. This was strongly resisted by many governments in the lead-up to the Paris conference in 2015.

Some governments may not want to know where they are compared with others or may not want the comparison to be public. But the public needs to know and civil society depends on it – it’s important at both a national and international level to have an honest assessment of governments’ climate action.

‘Despair’ as global carbon emissions to hit new record in 2018

So what has happened since Paris? Energy-related CO₂ emissions began to increase again in 2017, a worrying statistic. The energy sector’s carbon intensity decreased in 2016, and stalled in 2017, due to a slightly higher share of renewables and other zero-carbon technologies.

In India, Canada and Indonesia, the share of fossil fuels in their energy supply increased 2012-2017, but the UK, China and France managed to reduce theirs.

The Paris Agreement pledges are still lacking – only India is even close to getting onto a 1.5C-compatible emissions pathway, but it still remains wedded to coal. Seven countries are likely to miss their targets, and eight have targets so weak they’ve already achieved them.

Coal remains a strong issue blocking progress, especially in South Africa, Australia and Indonesia, which have the highest emissions-intensity in their power sector, with no plans to phase out coal. Japan is also embarking on a massive coal plant construction exercise.

There is hope in the transport sector, where the UK, France and Japan have strong phase-out plans for fossil fuel cars, but the US and Australia have the highest transport emissions per capita and lack adequate fuel efficiency standards.

Corralling the results of data from 20 countries across 80 indicators is a daunting task – and the choice of such indicators is crucial for understanding where the world stands on climate progress. The results are clear, and worrying: it’s time to pick up the pace.

Prof Dr Peter Eigen is co-chair of Climate Transparency, and the founder of Transparency International

Dr William Wills is research coordinator at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro’s  CentroClima programme, and an international consultant to international institutions such as the World Bank and UNDP

Dr Jiang Kejun is director of the Energy Research Institute, China, and an IPCC lead author

The post G20 countries must break their addiction to fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

“The Argentine G20 presidency has not planned a discussion on carbon pricing,” Carlos Gentile, Argentina’s secretary of state for climate change and sustainable development, told Climate Home News.

That means there will be no space given to the topic at the upcoming climate sustainability group meeting in Buenos Aires between 17 and 18 April. Nor when the leaders of the world’s largest economies meet in November. Although, Gentile said, other delegations “may wish to bring up the issue during our meetings”.

CHN understands that Germany has already raised the topic at meetings under the Argentinian presidency.

“We [Germany] do not expect stronger signals about carbon pricing this year, but the topic needs to stay on the agenda,” a source familiar with the matter said.

“We would have much stronger language on carbon pricing, but the opposition from oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia have been the sticking point – and continue to be so,” the expert went on to say.

Carbon price: Canada, Germany lead calls to price 50% of carbon emissions by 2030

Argentina is taking over the presidency at a time when the US decision to withdraw from Paris Agreement has led to a rift between nations over climate change.

In 2017, under the German presidency, the G20 leaders released a statement that allowed the US to stand aside from commitments to climate change.

Mercator Research Institute secretary general Brigitte Knopf, who leads a task force that advises on the G20 climate agenda, said: “Argentina is apparently not willing to face a situation where 19 countries stand against the one, as it was the situation under Germany’s leadership.

“The focus on long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies is good, but without adequate measures such as carbon pricing these strategies will remain a toothless exercise.”

Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, head of climate change at Argentinian NGO Fundación Biosfera, said: “Argentina is not in an easy position – it is not Germany – it is one of the smallest countries in the G20. Germany had the political power to stand up to the US and push their agenda. Argentina can’t take that risk.”

But Gentile rejected claims that Argentina had softened on climate change in order to accommodate the US position.

“Argentina has an independent position on each issue, and a very committed policy on climate action,” Gentile told CHN.

According to Maurtua Konstantinidis, the Argentinian government may also be looking to present an agenda more tailored to a developing country. “Some developing countries do not see carbon pricing as a developing countries issue, as they have other priorities first,” he said.

G7: Split as leaders issue climate statement without US

Last year was a breakthrough year for carbon pricing, where it was discussed at a high level under the watch of the German presidency. The result was a “Climate and Energy Action Plan” under which countries agreed that market-based instruments, such as carbon pricing, were important to reach climate goals.

But further talks on how to link up carbon pricing schemes could stall for the next three years. The Japanese presidency in 2019 is expected to be more open to carbon pricing but will be followed by Saudi Arabia in 2020. The world’s largest oil exporter is likely to oppose any talk of a carbon price.

Progress on the issue in the G20 is important, as these countries account for around 85% of global GDP and represent 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Knopf said the signals from her task force’s meetings in 2018 were “less promising” than last year.

“They promote gas as clean fuel and do not even mention carbon pricing or fossil fuel subsidies,” she said. “My fear is that we probably will experience a step back concerning the discussion about global climate change.”

Republish this article

The post Argentina accused of caving to Trump by dropping carbon price from G20 talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

The worst was averted as 19 out of 20 global leaders reaffirmed their recognition that there is no turning back from the need to take action on climate change, the opportunities this presents and stressed their determination to stand firm on the aims of the Paris Agreement. But, although the global framework for climate action survived, much more still needs to be done.  

Overall, the G20’s final outcome document demonstrates how isolated the Trump administration has become, particularly where climate action is concerned.  

The meeting’s German presidency worked hard to ensure that the other 19 major world economies maintained their complete backing for the Paris Agreement  making it clear that the landmark climate deal was ‘irreversible’.  In terms of the international recognition of the seriousness of the global challenge of climate change it is at least somewhat encouraging that it was the issue of this summit. 

Climate Weekly: Sign up for your essential climate news update

The US had wanted the communiqué to include language on behalf of all G20 nations that support would be forthcoming to help other countries ‘access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently’ but this, fortunately, was avoided. Instead any pressure to turn the clock back and depend on carbon intensive fuels has been acknowledged as a unilateral, backward move on behalf of an isolated state. This marks an important and significant success in containing the damage that the US position continues to cause. 

Before the summit, France took the lead in signalling that real climate action is unstoppable and will continue with its eye-catching announcement on ending the sale of diesel and gasoline vehicles by 2040 and after with the announcement that it would hold a summit to mobilise public and private finance behind the goals of the Paris Agreement in December 2017 .  

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s effective facilitation to achieve the strong consensus of the other 19 nations in the final communiqué that the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is irreversible was crucial.  In the run up to the G20, reports indicated the US had been making determined efforts to avoid becoming isolated at the summit in the way they had been in the recent statement by G7 environment ministers – specifically by attempting to persuade countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia and Russia not to give strong backing to the Paris process. Under the circumstances achieving unified language of the so-called ‘G19’ behind the Paris Agreement was a considerable success.  

Exclusive: Germany ‘massively weakened’ draft G20 climate plan to appease Trump

There have, however, been costs. The intention for the G20 to signal the need to increase ambition in national climate action plans did not make it into the final communiqué. This is unfortunate, as the Paris Agreement, although a breakthrough, was insufficient on many fronts.

Countries’ plans for action set out in their ‘nationally determined contributions’, as currently formulated, only take us about one third of the way on the emissions reductions we need to be on course for a 2C world. And the world needs 1.5C to be the clear, achievable target limit for temperature rise to be remotely safe, particularly for the poorest countries. The brutal fact is that the world’s climate will not stay within safe limits unless Paris provides a framework for increasing – not decreasing – ambition. That is why the actions of the US are so deplorable. 

The final communiqué represents a real success under the circumstances. But it is telling that in the end it will be remembered for division – the G19 against the US on climate – rather than for unity of purpose.   

At Hamburg arguably that was the game.  Multiple bilateral meetings were more important to many individual leaders than the collective outcome.  We are in a new era when no one bloc of nations can shape global events.

For climate action the future directions are clear. The global inter-governmental process is key and survives in robust shape after the successful isolation of the US at Hamburg. But action at all levels will be needed more than ever – in business, local government and civil society as well as by nation states.  

The US government’s intention to withdraw or renegotiate the Paris Agreement is a serious setback.  But the fact that in the US, companies, cities and state governments remain committed to the agreement because they recognise it makes economic sense, has the potential to keep the US on track. California governor Gerry Brown is rallying action at the state level, showing leadership by announcing a climate action summit to take place in September 2018.  

Germany now has the opportunity to work with the next G20 presidency, Argentina,  to get concrete actions agreed that will move domestic ambition forward both in terms of reducing emissions, and increasing climate finance for vulnerable countries. Support, in particular, for the 47 least developed countries in both expanding access to energy for their populations through renewables, and dealing with the damage caused by accelerating climate change, will be crucial for global momentum for climate action. 

Andrew Norton is director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 

The post This G20 will be remembered for division, not unity appeared first on Climate Home News.

As she does, it is worth bearing in mind that, in the wake of the US president’s decision to pull out of the Agreement, the UK’s divorce from the EU is the last thing the international community needs.

Brexit could have a profoundly destabilising impact on global momentum to address climate change; and the harder the Brexit, the greater the magnitude of these potential repercussions.

The negative consequences, according to a new report I authored for the Dublin-based Institute of International and European Affairs, ripple out from the loss of UK influence at the EU negotiating table. The EU has traditionally offered leadership in global efforts to address climate change, and together with China is now the glue holding the increasingly fragile Paris Agreement together.

Within the EU, the UK has historically been a key engine of strong climate policy, aligning itself to the clean and green grouping of Member States, including Germany and the Nordic countries.

The UK has consistently taken on more than its fair share of the collectively agreed EU decarbonisation objectives. This was the case for the Kyoto commitment period between 2008 and 2012, and in the post-Kyoto period that we are in currently. Most importantly, the UK is pencilled in for a significantly above average share to the EU’s pledge to the Paris Agreement, a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030.

Climate Weekly: Sign up for your essential climate news update

The UK has also been a strong supporter of the EU’s flagship climate policy, its carbon trading scheme, which covers over 45% of all heat trapping emissions from 31 countries. The scheme has flagged badly in recent years, with carbon prices hovering around €5, far too low to promote low-carbon investments. To drive up the price, the UK called for the EU to permanently cancel a large number of the surplus carbon credits, going well beyond other reform proposals on the table.

The so-called Visegrád grouping of Eastern European countries, led by Poland, has frequently opposed the UK’s ambition and reform proposals.

The ‘hardness’ of the final Brexit will determine the magnitude of the repercussions. In a soft Brexit scenario, where the UK chooses to remain in the EU’s single market (which enables frictionless trade of goods and services), membership of EU’s carbon trading scheme would likely be retained. However, the UK would withdraw from the collective EU approach to agreeing and sharing climate targets. This would remove UK influence at EU negotiations, tilting the balance of power towards the less ambitious grouping of member states. EU leadership and ambition would suffer.

In a so-called hard Brexit, where the UK leaves the single market and the customs union, the UK would likely withdraw from the EU’s carbon trading scheme, and its influence on the EU’s climate policy would therefore be further diminished.

In both soft and hard Brexit, a revising downward of the EU’s pledge to the Paris Agreement would likely be required. This is because the UK contributes disproportionately to the overall EU pledge, and other Member States are unlikely to want to take up the slack post-Brexit. This would have a destabilising impact on the Paris Agreement.

In what might be termed an ultra-hard scenario, where the UK seeks to gain competitive advantage through deregulation following a hard Brexit, the situation gets worse. In this case, the UK would be unlikely to submit an ambitious national pledge to the Paris Agreement, if indeed it submitted a pledge at all. The stability of the Paris Agreement could be threatened.

Report: Germany ‘massively weakened’ draft G20 climate plan to appease Trump

While ultra-hard Brexit might be considered unlikely, it should not be entirely discounted. A key perceived opportunity from Brexit, and part of its inherent driving logic, is cutting EU “red tape” with a view to gaining competitive advantage for the UK economy. Cutting climate regulations, such as environmental standards for buildings, cars, and appliances, is a clarion call of the powerful right-wing UK press, and might prove too tempting to resist.

Somewhat counterintuitively, in most scenarios, the implications for the UK’s national climate policy are limited. This is because the UK’s climate ambition is underpinned by domestic legislation such as the Climate Change Act (2008), and is not a function of EU Membership per se. The exception, of course, is the ultra-hard Brexit world, where the UK rolls back its domestic climate policy following a hard Brexit. In this scenario, there are profoundly destabilising impacts on decarbonisation momentum at all levels: within the UK, and at EU and UN fora.

In most policy spheres, the UK will be disproportionally negatively affected by its decision to leave the EU, be it in trade, foreign policy or security. However, when it comes to climate change, under most Brexit scenarios the most profoundly negative consequence and not felt by the UK, but by the EU and internationally.

The only scenario where there are no negative or destabilising forces for climate protection is where the partners patch up their differences, and the UK decision to leave the EU is reversed. Like ultra-hard Brexit, this might be considered somewhat unlikely. On the other hand, negative news could drive civil society opposition to Brexit as the full economic, political and regulatory implications become clearer over the coming year, and the fallacy of having one’s cake while also eating it is exposed.

The US could also eventually revoke its decision to withdraw from Paris, although that would likely require another federal election. No matter how unlikely, one can always hope.

Joseph Curtin is a research fellow for climate policy at the Institute of International and European Affairs and at University College Cork, and a member of the Irish Government’s Climate Change Advisory Council. Opinions expressed are the author’s alone.

The post May meets Trump on climate, but her Brexit will damage the Paris accord appeared first on Climate Home News.

The richest 20 nations have pledged to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies over the “medium term”. But campaigners and investors have urged them to follow the G7 and set a deadline.

Those calls were repeated on Sunday by the finance ministers of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), a political grouping of the countries that are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change because of geography and poverty.

In a communiqué issued at the end of its weekend meeting in Washington DC, the group called “for market distorting fossil fuel production subsidies to be removed immediately and no later than 2020, and urge the G20 to set such as adopt a clear timeframe for fossil fuel subsidy elimination”.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate news update

The CVF meeting, which was chaired by Ethiopia, said subsidies for fossil fuels could only be justified when they provided real benefits to the poor.

The G20, which represent the world’s largest economies, still pours hundreds of billions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry each year through tax breaks, direct finance and other forms of support. Definitions of what constitutes a subsidy are hotly contended, but the OECD has issued an estimate – which is considered conservative – that its member states give the industry support worth $160-200bn each year.

In a side meeting, representatives of the G20 met with the CVF, where the importance of a fossil fuel subsidy phase out was expressed.

G20 heads of state will meet in Hamburg in July. The German presidency is expected to prioritise climate change at the meeting, despite expected recalcitrance on the subject from Donald Trump’s new US administration.

The Paris climate agreement, struck in 2015, commits countries to limit global warming to “well below” 2C and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C”. As the most vulnerable countries, the CVF have the most immediate interest in keeping global temperatures below the latter, lower goal.

Macaya Hayes, ambassador of Costa Rica to the US, said: “For vulnerable countries, the 1.5C limit is a matter of survival. It requires immediate and swift action by the global community, and above all, the major industrial powers.”

Also occupying the minds of the most vulnerable countries is a promise of $100bn of finance that rich countries have promised to deliver each year to the poor world by 2020 to help them cope with climate change.

In a thinly-veiled reference the US government’s budget proposal to cease climate finance flows, the CVF communiqué said: “Pulling resources from climate protection will create economic instability. Investing in climate action is necessary and critical to inclusive development and economic growth”.

The meeting of the CVF also welcomed new members, with Colombia, Lebanon, the Gambia, Palestine and Samoa joining the forum. The Marshall Islands was elected to take over as chair from Ethiopia in 2018.

The post Vulnerable nations call on G20 to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) highlighted the economic benefits of a shift to clean energy. The International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasised the challenges. Each cited different emissions, technology and financial figures.

The German government had asked the two agencies to collaborate on a study of the investment needed by 2050 to clean up the energy mix in line with the Paris climate deal. This would inform discussions at the G20, where the host is keeping climate cooperation on the agenda in the face of renewed US hostility.

“Decarbonisation is a huge opportunity for modernising our economies,” said recently appointed economics and energy minister Brigitte Zypries.

IRENA and the IEA agreed on a carbon budget, the level of emissions consistent with a 66% chance of holding global warming below 2C. But they disagreed on on methods, assumptions and priorities – reflected in a refusal to make a joint statement. “IRENA and the IEA are not best friends for a variety of reasons,” said a source close to the process.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate news update

IRENA, with its mandate to promote solar, wind, bioenergy and other clean sources, majored on renewables and energy efficiency. The IEA, an institution primarily concerned with energy security, favoured a “technology neutral” model that spit out large scale nuclear power and carbon capture and storage.

When asked, officials played down the differences. “The big picture shows it is feasible to achieve a big transition in the energy sector,” said Henning Wuester, policy director at IRENA, at a press briefing. “There are details that are different. They represent different views that are out there, but I think that makes it more interesting, because we see there are different perspectives that reach the same goals in the end.”

A key message was that the costs of overhauling the way we get light, heat and motion are not prohibitive: an extra 0.3% of global GDP in 2050 under the IEA analysis and 0.4% according to IRENA – with net benefits in terms of employment and economic growth.

From the IEA, which has repeatedly underestimated the growth of wind and solar power, it represents a less sceptical stance than previously. “Renewables are becoming more and more attractive,” said chief executive Fatih Birol.

Either scenario would require countries to go further than the targets they submitted towards the Paris Agreement. But campaigners said they did not reflect the pact’s ambition of holding temperature rise “well below 2C” or to 1.5C if possible.

The report is “an improvement” on other studies from non-civil society institutions, said Stephan Singer of Climate Action Network International. “It is not a business-as-usual scenario, it is ambitious, but not as ambitious as it needs to be.”

Bill Hare, a climate scientist and advocate for a 1.5C warming limit, said energy sector emissions should be close to zero in 2050, not just cut by 70% as in the report. “The consequence on policy is that particularly for electricity and transport, deep decarbonisation is too slow.”

It remains to be seen what influence the assessment will have on the G20. At a finance ministers’ meeting last week, the group of major economies ditched a commitment from the previous year to mobilise climate funds for developing countries – reportedly under US pressure. Reference to phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies stayed in, albeit with no agreement on an end date.

In his first budget, US president Donald Trump proposed to axe spending on climate programmes at home and abroad. Experts warned this would damage international cooperation.

Clean Energy Wire paid for Megan Darby’s travel to Berlin and accommodation

The post G20 report shows competing visions of a clean energy future appeared first on Climate Home News.

These include newly-appointed US secretary of state Rex Tillerson, making his debut appearance in the international arena. His presence is likely to cast a shadow on international diplomacy and cooperation on climate change, giving the EU and China an opportunity to step up their game together.

A united front on climate change could see Brussels and Beijing forging ahead and fill in part the political vacuum left by the Donald Trump administration. Top EU and Chinese diplomats should seize the Bonn meeting as the first of many moments to join forces.

The German presidency has provided fertile ground to catalyse the chemistry. Among its busy G20 agenda, Berlin has gone the extra mile to place climate change among its priorities.

The upcoming foreign affairs ministers’ meeting is due to highlight the cross-cutting nature of climate change and discuss the diplomatic and security threats it poses.

Meanwhile, other important issues, such as implementing the Paris Agreement, will be dealt with in earnest under parallel tracks.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Under the right conditions, the German plan could be an effective follow-up to last year’s G20 summit, which saw the US and China jointly ratify the Paris Agreement. This move stimulated ratification of the Agreement all over the world, including by the European Union, and brought the historical agreement into force at an unprecedented speed.

As the US appetite for climate action dwindles, this year’s G20 is unlikely to deliver the same kind of boost to international climate cooperation without reinvigorated leadership.

China is ready

Less than a month ago, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Xi Jinping of China voiced his unequivocal commitment to the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, in a bold move just days before the US presidential inauguration, Xi’s climate ambassador Xie Zhenhua also pledged Chinese leadership and welcomed collaboration with other countries.

Beijing sees the diplomatic, economic, and environmental opportunities presented by climate action. US inaction will not deter China’s domestically driven climate resolve, but will make it more open to work with others and accelerate the pace of change.

…is the EU?

While China is sending its climate messages to the world loud and clear, EU leaders Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk have remained notably silent on the subject. Little has been mentioned by Junker and Tusk about the EU’s dedication to achieve the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.

Instead, they have left it to the usual climate and energy suspects – European Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic and commissioner for climate action Miguel Arias Canete – to be vocal about the importance of the international climate regime.

The EU’s leaders approach of relegating climate change to a secondary agenda item needs to change. Not only will it put Brussels at risk of losing the opportunity to establish a new climate alliance to counter the US, it may also slow down broader international momentum for climate action.

Obama’s climate legacy: a battle of attrition at home
Obama’s climate legacy: China, India and the Paris pact
Obama’s climate legacy: can it survive President Trump?

If there is one lesson to be learned from the US-China climate cooperation, it is that tremendous political resources are required to advance climate cooperation. And that can only be mobilized from the highest level. Without commitments from the EU presidents, EU-China cooperation will at best be limited to technical cooperation.

The current cooperation between the two blocs on carbon markets and trading can produce incremental benefits, but that alone will fall miserably short of meeting the daunting challenge to fill the gap left by the US.

Instead, the two Parties should go further to spearhead joint action and collaboration for longer term decarbonisation of our societies. A stronger political alliance can promote and support the equitable transition of European and Chinese regions, bringing multiple societal benefits as they phase fossil fuels out of their economies. Major benefits could also be reaped from sharing lessons learned on monitoring and reporting their respective climate mitigation efforts.

Lastly, China and the EU can work together to integrate the goals of the Paris Agreement into their respective financial institutions, which will be key to bringing about a more efficient and effective energy transition.

The time is ripe for a closer EU-China partnership on climate action, but realising the untapped potential of a stronger alliance relies on more buy-in from the EU’s political heavyweights. Now that China has set out its intentions to lead on climate action, the EU needs to step up to the plate and fill the void left open by the US administration.

Maeve McLynn is finance and subsidies policy coordinator at CAN Europe and Li Shuo is a senior global policy advisor (climate & ocean) for Greenpeace East Asia

The post EU and China can outflank Trump on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

To date, however, the Trump administration has signalled it may be willing to retreat from the global challenge of climate change and walk away from one of the most important international agreements of the past 25 years: the Paris Agreement on climate change.

President Donald Trump claimed during his campaign that he would “cancel” the agreement. More recently, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley made extremely careful – and ultimately non-committal – statements during their confirmation hearings about whether they support continued US participation.

Although other nations remain dedicated to implementing the Paris Agreement, a withdrawal by the US – the world’s second largest greenhouse gas polluter – would erode the efficacy of the pact.

World leaders can help prevent this outcome if they strongly convey to the Trump administration that climate change is a central concern and that US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would cast the US as an untrustworthy partner and would severely and unnecessarily compromise US foreign policy priorities.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Understandably, it may be difficult for leaders to deliver this message one-on-one given the high stakes involved in so many other difficult issues. When asked whether she would bring up the Paris Agreement during her recent visit to the US, UK prime minister Theresa May demurred that she hoped “all parties would continue to ensure that the climate change agreement be put into practice”. On Monday, the topic of climate change showed up nowhere in the joint statement between President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – and it was not mentioned once in the leaders’ joint press conference.

There is power, however, in numbers. The meetings of the G20 – a forum of the world’s most powerful economies – present some of the best opportunities for countries to collectively press the US to stay in the Paris Agreement.

They also present some of the best opportunities for countries to communicate to the new administration that climate action is in the economic and security interests of all nations and that there are significant economic opportunities to be found in the global pivot toward non-polluting energy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has emerged as a key global leader on climate change and will host the G20 this year (Pic: World Economic Forum/Moritz Hager)

It is opportune that Germany holds the presidency of the G20 in 2017. Building on her successful G7 meeting in 2015, which focused in part on climate and national security, Chancellor Angela Merkel has positioned the G20 to adopt climate change as a priority.

The three overarching objectives of the G20 summit this July are fostering economic stability; making the global economy viable for the future, including through climate and development goals; and establishing the G20 as a “community of responsibility.” Limiting greenhouse gas pollution and building resilience to the effects of climate change are necessary to achieving each of these objectives.

There are many ways that the G20 could advance the global climate effort in 2017. The forum could make further progress on the topic of fossil fuel subsidy reform, which it has addressed since 2009; it could promote the adoption of climate risk disclosure guidelines for businesses; and it could work to expand access to climate risk insurance. It could also do more to steer development finance toward low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Fossil fuels subsidies ‘jeopardising climate deal’, say major investors https://t.co/yvJBGlCJYk pic.twitter.com/IIyvir5wJw

— Karl Mathiesen (@KarlMathiesen) February 15, 2017

Most centrally, however, the G20 could strongly reaffirm the commitment of the largest greenhouse gas polluters to the Paris Agreement. The groundwork for setting this agenda could begin at the end of this week, when the G20 foreign ministers, including Tillerson, meet in Bonn.

If G20 countries confirm their participation in the Paris Agreement, they would have broad support from the American people. President Trump does not have a mandate for an anti-climate crusade. Approximately 70% of registered US voters, for example, support US engagement in the Paris Agreement. Nearly 80% support domestic regulation or taxing of greenhouse gas pollution.

In the early days of the Trump presidency, it is essential for world leaders to make apparent their dedication to the global climate effort. This is now a critical feature of what it means to be a great power. The new US administration should have full information about the priorities of its allies as it formulates its foreign policy positions.

Gwynne Taraska is the associate director of energy policy at the Centre for American Progress. Andrew Light, a former senior climate official in the US Department of State, is a university professor at George Mason University.

The post How the G20 could save Paris climate deal from Trump appeared first on Climate Home News.

That’s the demand from a coalition of 43 of the poorest and most climate vulnerable countries ahead of July’s G20 summit in Hamburg.

They want governments from the wealthy Group of 20 to start work on long term plans to ditch fossil fuels ahead of a UN climate policy review in 2018.

“Chancellor Merkel now should convince as many of her G20 partners as possible to develop and submit their national 2050 strategies by 2018, in order to inform the global stock take and enable a lifting up of ambitions,” says the open letter to the German leader.

Last month an official working with Germany told Climate Home climate change and carbon pricing would be one of the central pillars of its presidency through 2017.

Authored by Abraham Tekeste, Ethiopia’s minister of finance and economics and chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum group, the address makes no mention of incoming US president Donald Trump.

Which countries are standing up to Trump on climate? @edking_CH reviews https://t.co/Iy8RlxrWFf pic.twitter.com/P21qPcIxkN

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 19, 2017

The billionaire is likely to cancel further payments from the US to the UN-backed Green Climate Fund, which was set up to help poor nations cope with extreme weather and invest in green energy.

CVF does call on “international financial institutions” to align their investments with the UN goal to try and limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, agreed in 2015.

“Criteria need to be developed and applied that fosters green investments and also stops public money from flowing into old technologies that harm the climate when green opportunities for growth and resilience are available,” writes Tekeste.

On Wednesday, leading climate science agencies confirmed 2016 was the hottest year on record, and said average global temperatures have now inched up 1.1C since records began.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post World’s poorest urge G20 to make long-term climate plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

In the past 15 months the governor of the Bank of England has delivered four keynote speeches focused on global warming and participated in a UN climate summit.

Carney doesn’t do soaring rhetoric: what he does do is grind out a series of carefully calibrated warnings on the impact a warming world could have on the financial markets.

“Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late,” he told the UK insurance industry at a September 2015 event at Lloyds of London.

“Climate change is a tragedy of the horizon which imposes a cost on future generations that the current one has no direct incentive to fix,” he warned German business leaders a year later.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

As chairman of the G20 nations’ Financial Stability Board, Carney has overseen studies into the potential of green finance flows and the need for greater transparency on climate risk.

The latter was presented in London this week in a smart but low-key launch at the Tate Modern, attended by media and representatives from banking and industry leaders.

Mandated by the G20 and chaired by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, the thick report may prove to be a turning point in the way the financial services sector thinks about climate change.

It sets out recommendations supported by Barclays, HSBC, Tata Steel and the China Development Bank for tougher climate risk analysis across all sectors – including fossil fuel majors.

It details how companies should map out how they will fare if the 195 countries that agreed the Paris climate deal deliver on their plan to cut carbon emissions to virtually zero by 2050.

Report: G20 panel tells energy giants to come clean on climate risks

“This is a solution for the market, by the market,” said Carney. “With the right information, financial markets can smooth the transition to a 2C world,” he added.

There’s nothing on polar bears, penguins, wind turbines or the need to go vegan in Carney’s playbook. He’s so dull he can be hard to quote, but his words make sense to the banking community.

“There have been lots of attempts to give companies guidance, but none of those have come from the Financial Stability Board or the governor of the Bank of England,” says Steve Waygood, head of Aviva Investors sustainable and responsible investment team.

“He’s a climate hero for bringing in a vital constituency,” says Mark Campanale, a former banker now running the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI). “He says straightforward things: markets have to price risk and we need more data and scenario analysis.”

Carney’s impact on media coverage of climate is instructive. Where green groups target the Guardian, New York Times and other centre-left outfits, when the governor talks climate he’s reported across the mainstream media.

That makes him a target for critics, notably those who want him to stick to his “day job” as governor.

“Who put Mark Carney in charge of climate policy?” asked the Daily Telegraph’s business columnist Jeremy Warner in 2015, branding his interest in the issue “well meaning” but “reckless”.

Former chancellor Lord Lawson – founder of the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation – has long called on Carney to face the sack, accusing him of “engaging in green claptrap”.

Times writer Tim Montgomerie was equally dismissive this week – tweeting the governor was “not running” to be the next prime minister of Canada yet.

Mark Carney has opinions on many things but he's not running to be Canada's PM yet and should focus on his day job https://t.co/XPmP9EZwjc

— Tim Montgomerie (@montie) December 14, 2016

What’s curious about these mini-blowouts is that Carney actually says relatively little on climate policy – simply that countries and companies should be aware of the risks they face.

“Participants in the Lloyd’s market know all too well that what appear to be low probability risks can evolve into large and unforeseen costs over a longer timescale,” he said in last September’s address.

Carney did touch on the stranded assets debate – the chance that some oil, gas and coal reserves could become worthless if the global transition to a greener economy accelerates.

But here again he is not saying anything new – just taking seriously the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculations on what remains in the carbon budget for 2C.

“If that estimate is even approximately correct it would render the vast majority of reserves ‘stranded’ – oil, gas and coal that will be literally unburnable without expensive carbon capture technology, which itself alters fossil fuel economics,” he said.

Report: Climate divested funds now bigger than listed oil, gas sector

Critics of his interventions are “dangerously misguided” argues Waygood, who says Aviva and the wider insurance industry “strongly support” his stance.

“We’re at one end of a spectrum of risk. Warming beyond 4C (above pre industrial levels) is an existential risk for the insurance sector.”

#Climatechange in 17 tweets, by @ed_hawkins https://t.co/eCuB3Xls65 pic.twitter.com/9YQMLf5rzd

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) December 13, 2016

Jane Ambachtsheer, global head of Responsible Investment at Mercer Investments, says Carney’s warnings are pushing at an open door.

“There have been clear signals from the investment community in the last decade that companies are interested in assessing climate risk,” she says. “The fact over 6,000 already report [on climate risk] voluntarily through CDP suggests that message is getting through.”

Where Carney’s desire to drum up climate warnings come from is not clear – one report says his wife Diana is an “eco warrior” who wants to return consumption to “sustainable” levels.

We also know he met UN climate chief Christiana Figueres for a business breakfast in October 2015, and that he received a presentation on Carbon Tracker Initiative’s “unburnable carbon” report earlier that year.

But reading through his speeches, what comes across is less a passionate treehugger and more a man who has looked at the data and thinks investors could do with a little more clarity.

It’s a message he will doubtless take to the World Economic Forum in Davos next month, where he’s due to host a climate round-table.

“Given the uncertainties around climate, not everyone will agree on the timing or the scale of adjustments required to achieve this goal,” he said at yesterday’s report launch.

“But the right information will allow optimists and pessimists, sceptics and evangelists, to back their convictions with their capital.“

The post Mark Carney, the unlikely climate champion appeared first on Climate Home News.

If these countries follow through with their commitments to reduce emissions, it will represent unprecedented progress in the global effort to curb climate change.

Unfortunately, US President-elect Donald Trump has proposed a number of policies that would have negative climate implications.

In light of this, the G20 summit in July 2017 provides an important opportunity for other major powers to resist backsliding and even to make some progress in meeting the global climate challenge.

To its credit, the German government, which officially assumed the G20 presidency this month, is already positioning itself well—and deliberately so—for such an effort.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced her three “pillar” objectives for the summit, she explicitly identified climate change as a priority.

The pillars include fostering global economic stability; making the global economy viable for the future, including through implementation of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and establishing the G20 as a “community of responsibility,” including by promoting a compact with Africa that would address infrastructure investment, among other topics.

If the G20 focuses on making infrastructure low carbon and resilient—which would have widespread social benefits—it can make progress across all three pillars.

Infrastructure projects that are vulnerable to the physical effects of climate change can cause profound economic damage, while high-carbon projects drive further climate change and economic risk.

How #Trump played Gore, DiCaprio + the media for #climate fools… https://t.co/QHohT5wWYN pic.twitter.com/roQz1CXnt2

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) December 8, 2016

And given that G20 countries account for more than 75 percent of greenhouse gas pollution and more than 85 percent of global gross domestic product, they have both the responsibility and the resources to promote low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Focusing on climate-compatible infrastructure would be a step forward for the G20—although one that is rooted in its past and ongoing work.

The forum has expanded its infrastructure initiatives in recent years, but the climate and infrastructure workstreams have been largely siloed, despite the fact that the majority of the infrastructure sectors in which the G20 is promoting investment—energy, transport, and water—are inextricably linked with climate issues.

By creating an integrated infrastructure and climate agenda, the G20 could build on several existing strands of work and fight to preserve global climate progress. Here are five opportunities.

1. Identify and disclose transition risk

As investors, civil society, and governments increasingly turn away from greenhouse gas pollution, the value of assets will shift. High-carbon assets will decline in value or even become stranded: The fossil fuel industry, for example, could lose more than $30 trillion over 25 years. An abrupt reassessment of asset values, however, could have a destabilizing effect on the global economy.

The first step in mitigating this risk—called transition risk—is identifying it. It is in the economic self-interest of companies, investors, and nations to have a clear view of the financial risks and opportunities presented by climate change—particularly in the context of infrastructure projects, which can have decades-long life spans.

Currently, too few companies accurately and thoroughly report their exposure to climate risks. To counter this, the Financial Stability Board—an international body that promotes global financial resilience—created the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, which is currently developing disclosure guidelines that will be finalized in advance of the July 2017 summit.

With the guidelines in hand, the G20 should turn to the task of promoting implementation. Going forward, G-20 members could adopt a leadership role by considering and publicly disclosing physical and transition risks in major federal projects in order to protect their national economies over the long term. They could also work to institute these practices among the development banks of which they are members.

2. Strengthen fossil fuel subsidy reform

In order to improve investment in climate-compatible infrastructure, countries will need to increase public expenditures and foster the market conditions that attract private finance.

Fortunately, the G20 countries committed in 2009 to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies—a step that drives progress on both of these fronts. Such subsidies divert public dollars away from infrastructure spending and tilt the investment playing field against renewable energy.

To help build momentum for fossil fuel subsidy reform, the G20 began a peer review program in which countries can engage in an information-sharing exercise. The first of these peer reviews—completed by the United States and China—was publicly released during the 2016 summit.

Under the German presidency, the G20 should build on this successful first review by improving and expanding participation in the process.

For example, the United States and China could establish a precedent whereby countries that undergo a peer review participate subsequently as advisers. In addition, Germany could establish a channel for stakeholder input in the peer review process.

Importantly, the G20 should also build on its 2009 commitment and establish the year 2025 as a deadline for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

3. Include Paris goals in growth strategies

The growth strategy of each G20 country—which includes infrastructure plans—has been a crucial contribution to the collective effort to foster economic recovery and prosperity.

Countries should include their Paris goals to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and build resilience to the effects of climate change in their growth strategies. This would give their climate commitments credibility and would allow countries to plan, in an integrated way, how to achieve a stable and low-carbon economy.

The Paris Agreement calls on countries not only to submit near-term climate goals but also to formulate national midcentury strategies to decarbonize their economies. Four G20 countries—Germany, the United States, Canada, and Mexico—have already created their midterm strategies. All G20 countries should create them by 2020 and include them in their plans for growth.

The G20 could also implement peer reviews of national progress in adopting renewable energy technologies in the context of their midcentury strategies. This would be in keeping with the forum’s practice of implementing peer reviews when national progress is essential to reaching collective goals.

4. Expand access to climate-risk insurance

The world is already locked into a period of increased climate risk and damage due to the past 150 years of pollution that has accumulated in the atmosphere. This necessitates increased emphasis on enhancing climate resilience.

Recognizing this, the G20 should promote climate resilience as part of its focus on infrastructure development. In addition, the G20 should expand access to climate-risk insurance, which can help hedge against potential losses from extreme weather events, providing more security for investments. Climate-risk insurance can also assist with post-disaster recovery and create incentives for adaptation measures.

In 2015, the G7 set a goal—through an initiative known as InsuResilience—of providing climate-related risk insurance to 400 million additional people in the most-vulnerable developing countries by 2020.

Under the German presidency, the G20 could adopt this same target. It could also address the obstacles to achieving it, such as stakeholders’ lack of familiarity with the innovative policies—for example, parametric risk insurance, regional risk pools, and microinsurance—that present opportunities to expand insurance to new populations.

To this end, the G20 could support a platform for sharing insurance policy designs and best practices that would be open to all countries, subnational governments, regional organizations, and nongovernmental organizations.

5. Steer investments toward greener infrastructure

There are a variety of tools that the G20 could promote in its infrastructure initiatives in order to mitigate transition risk and steer investment toward low-carbon options.

For example, G20 countries should consider the rising cost of carbon pollution in infrastructure investment decisions—a practice known as proxy carbon pricing.

This evaluation tool—already well known in the private sector—is inspired by fiscal prudence: Factoring in a proxy price when assessing long-term projects can help countries and businesses determine whether they will remain financially viable in the global shift away from carbon pollution. In the future, G20 countries and businesses should expand the use of proxy prices that are indexed to the damage to society caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

It is vital to prevent the progress on global climate action from slowing. Fortunately, this year’s G20 under the German presidency can provide a near-term line of international defense—and it even has the potential to drive progress by integrating its infrastructure and climate agendas. Moreover, doing so would be true to the founding purpose of the G20, which is to support global economic stability.

This cannot be achieved without climate-compatible infrastructure and, more broadly, a swift transition to a low-carbon global economy.

Gwynne Taraska is the Associate Director of Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. Pete Ogden is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Nancy Alexander is Director of the Economic Governance Program at Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung North America. Howard Marano is a Research Assistant at the Center for American Progress.

This article first appeared on the Center for American Progress website

The post How Germany’s G20 can accelerate progress on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

On Wednesday it released its first policy guide to the Hamburg summit, which is scheduled for July 2017. That statement listed global warming among only a few headline issues it wants discussed.

“One main concern is to make progress on realising the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change,” reads a line in the G20 agenda, which chancellor Angela Merkel presented to her cabinet.

The G20 will be one of the first gatherings for incoming US president Donald Trump to engage with fellow world leaders and gain a sense of the level of global commitment on climate.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Climate change has dominated the gathering of the world’s top economies in recent years. In 2016 the US and China used it to announce they had ratified the Paris climate deal.

In 2015 G20 countries mandated the Financial Stability Board to develop new guidelines for boosting green finance flows, which are due to be published in early 2017.

The German announcement said the G20 meeting would also challenge members to “accept responsibility” in the face of mass migration and refugee movements.

Brigitte Knopf, an official with inside knowledge of G20 planning, said Wednesday’s announcement by the German presidency was being viewed in the country as “an anti-Trump agenda”.

Knopf is head of the Berlin-based Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), which is tasked with shaping policy for the climate aspect of the talks.

She said the MCC would be recommending a strong focus on carbon pricing at the talks and that initial discussions with the government and industry bodies had been encouraging.

Will Europe be a deal maker or a deal taker? @MAC_europa's speech at launch of clean energy package yesterday: https://t.co/98sLcLmzzd pic.twitter.com/pMMsOsIl4h

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) December 1, 2016

“Already for half a year now we have been having a very good dialogue with the ministries and they are very much interested in the topic,” she said.

“We really see a chance that carbon pricing can become a topic within the G20. At least in the times before Trump. Now everything is a bit more difficult of course.”

Addressing Trump’s apparent scepticism on the causes of climate change, Merkel said this week she would challenge the billionaire on his beliefs when they meet.

“Of course I’ll say that I believe that climate change is certainly caused by humans – and we’ll want to see if the position there develops,” she said in a speech to party members in the city of Muenster.

“One always has to try to find compromise through mutual respect and a clear position. That’s politics – always to find compromise.”

The post Germany makes climate change G20 priority appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a statement released on 1 September, the People’s Bank of China said the “Guidelines on Establishing the Green Financial System” would now underpin domestic financing.

Under the plans, a national green development fund will be created and local governments will be told to support green infrastructure projects.

“In China, establishing a green finance system has become a national strategy,” said Zhou Xiaochuan, the bank’s governor.

Participating agencies include the influential National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Finance.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

According to the UN Environment Programme an estimated US$600 billion a year is required to develop China’s renewable energy, clean transport and energy efficiency sectors.

Subsidies will be provided for loans classed as “green”, and over time companies will be required to take part in a mandatory environmental disclosure scheme

“The Guidelines call for the development of green insurance and trading of environmental rights, as well as the drafting of laws and regulations for introducing a mandatory pollution liability insurance system,” said the statement.

“They also support the development of various carbon finance products, and promote the development of the markets for emission rights, energy rights, water rights, and other environmental rights, as well as financing tools based on these rights.”

Report: US, China ratify Paris climate agreement together

Government departments should “faithfully implement all their requirements” it added.

The guidelines offer little clue as to what would be classed as green. Last week a Greenpeace investigation revealed China rates some high efficiency coal projects as clean and green.

“There are some categories of qualifying green projects included in the Chinese guidelines that differ from practices in the international green bond markets, in particular fossil fuel projects, public transport projects that use fossil fuels, and supply chain investments,” says a recent report from the Climate Bonds Initiative.

I endorse @G20_China call for financial system to support the green transformation of our economies. #Hangzhou #G20 1/2

— Valdis Dombrovskis (@VDombrovskis) September 5, 2016

Still, finance industry observers said the bank’s statement, combined with a strong G20 push on green finance, highlights the Beijing government’s commitment to the environment.

Under the G20 “Hangzhou Consensus” the world’s top economies said green funding levels need to be scaled up and agreed to collaborate on policies to support environmental protection.

“The commitment by China’s most senior leadership to greening the country’s financial system reinforces the country’s ambition to both reshape its domestic financial system and serve the needs of green inclusive development,” said UNEP chief Erik Solheim.

“We hope this will encourage other nations to do likewise.”

The post China’s top ministries commit to green finance drive appeared first on Climate Home News.

What they did not agree on were hoped-for deadlines to ratify the Paris climate agreement and phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

The G20 communique, released in French before it was released in English, committed the nations to ratifying the Paris climate agreement. Leaders “expect a rapid implementation of the agreement in all its dimensions,” it said.

However, it stopped short of calling on the entire G20 to join the agreement by the end of 2016. Arvind Panagariya, India’s chief negotiator at the G20 summit, told The Indian Express that he had argued against the inclusion of such a timeline.

“I felt we were not quite ready yet in terms of the domestic actions that are required for us to ratify or at least commit to ratify within 2016. So we plan to do it as soon as possible,” said Panagariya.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The push to bring the agreement into force this year was supercharged last weekend when the world’s two biggest polluters, China and the US, formalised their acceptance together. That brought the number of countries joining the treaty to 26 accounting for 39.07% of global emissions. The triggers for the pact to become law are 55 countries and 55%.

Oxfam’s advocacy and campaigns director Steve Price-Thomas said: “The urgency for action to curb emissions and help the poorest cope with climate change cannot be overstated. The fact that G20 nations are seeking the ratification of the Paris climate agreement should be a matter of course.”

Further dismaying observers was the failure to commit to a timeline for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. The leader’s communique repeated the language in previous texts that commits to a “medium term” end to a practice estimated to funnel between $160bn and $5.3tn into the fossil fuel industry, depending on how you define a subsidy.

Oil Change International senior campaigner Alex Doukas said: “As more governments take the important step of ratifying the Paris agreement on climate change, they must stop giving handouts to big polluters, which undermine the spirit and the letter of the Paris deal.”

Indeed, the communique included new language promising to “promote methods of extraction, transportation and processing of natural gas that minimise environmental impacts”. The insertion directly contradicted the ambition to phase out subsidies, said Doukas.

Report: Insurers worth $1.2tn tell G20 to stop funding fossil fuels by 2020

One area that saw progress was a commitment to help shift trillions of dollars in private capital into the green economy. A passage affirmed that countries had taken on the recommendations of a study group convened hastily this year by the Chinese presidency, which made seven recommendations on the restructuring of the world economy.

Ben Caldecott, director of the sustainable finance programme at the University of Oxford Smith School, said: “The shift to a more sustainable global economy will be the most capital intensive transition in human history. The G20 is right to focus on how to mobilise the finance required, and we warmly welcome the work produced jointly by the Bank of England and the People’s Bank of China on green finance. It is important that this work accelerates under the G20 in Germany.”

The fact that the shift in rhetoric came under the leadership of the country with the largest carbon emissions on earth was noted by many. Li Shuo, senior global policy advisor to Greenpeace East Asia said the country’s climate leadership was strengthened by the outcome of the G20.

“With a strong call for early ratification and a joint Sino-US announcement before the G20, China has properly done its homework as the G20 president. This makes the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement – an inconceivable task a short few months ago – close to reality. The rhythm and durability of the new climate regime will be enhanced as a result of it. Now China needs to match its political effort with further action,” he said.

The post G20 reaffirms climate commitments – but dodges deadlines appeared first on Climate Home News.

Restoring hope, strengthening multilateralism. Making the impossible not only possible but irreversible. Thx to all! https://t.co/kVwxruVU3F

— Christiana Figueres (@CFigueres) September 3, 2016

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“Today’s announcement, coupled with other key countries signaling intentions to take similar action, all but assures the Paris Agreement will take effect this year. Logistically, negotiations on the agreement’s detailed rules will likely take another year or two to finalize.”

By moving together to swiftly ratify the Paris Agreement, the United States & China are setting the pace for the rest of world to join (1/3)

— Al Gore (@algore) September 3, 2016

Mattlan Zackhras, Minister-in-Assistance to the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands:
“Today’s announcement is the strongest signal yet that what we agreed in Paris, will soon be the law of the land. With the two biggest emitters ready to lead, the transition to a low-emissions, climate-resilient global economy is now irreversible.
It’s critical we now see the other big emitters quickly follow-suit and clarify their own plans to help bring the Paris Agreement into force this year.”

Thoriq Ibrahim, Min. of Environment and Energy for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States:
“We welcome the news and call on all countries to not only to follow suit, but also to accelerate the deployment of climate solutions and make improvements year after year. The current commitments under the Paris Agreement are not sufficient to do what is necessary, but it demonstrates that the entire international community has joined together to tackle our generation’s most pressing challenge. Success depends on nothing less.”

Michael Jacobs, Senior Advisor, New Climate Economy
“The world’s two largest emitters have joined the Paris Agreement not out of charity or altruism but because it makes economic sense for both of them. The Paris Agreement doesn’t just offer the possibility of a safer world for future generations. It promises new jobs and industries in the low carbon economy. With China and the US on board, we can expect the rest of the world to follow, and bring this vital agreement into force as early as possible.”

Andrew Steer, President & CEO, World Resources Institute:
“Cooperation between the U.S. and China on climate change, once unimaginable, now stands as the brightest spot in their relationship. In joining the Paris Agreement in tandem, these two leaders have reconfirmed their responsibility to lead by example. The two countries are also united in pushing for progress on multiple fronts, including around HFCs and aviation emissions, that will enable even greater leaps forward. Coming just before the G20 summit in China, these announcements reflect that smart climate action goes hand-in-hand with future economic stability and growth. Their actions open the way for an enduring legacy on climate change that will leave the world better for today’s children and future generations.”

Hillary will deliver on Paris & go further to cut emissions, build renewable energy to power every home in America. https://t.co/pbSfCG6md3

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) September 3, 2016

Jennifer Morgan Executive Director of Greenpeace International:
“The world finally has a global climate agreement with both the U.S. and China as formal Parties. This signals a new era in global efforts to address climate change. Both countries now need to scale and speed up their efforts in charting a future that avoids the worst impacts of climate change.”

¡Una gran noticia para el mundo! Es importante seguir el liderazgo de los 2 mayores emisores #ParisAgreement https://t.co/6djLMulrc7

— Felipe Calderón (@FelipeCalderon) September 3, 2016

Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid’s Senior Climate Advisor:
“This marks the moment the two biggest economies throw their weight behind the Paris Agreement. It means the deal, agreed less than nine months ago, will now likely have the full force of law before the end of the year. This choreographed announcement shows that the US and China are still working together collaboratively to address climate change. And it shows how far we’ve come from the days when they were both at the back of the class, dragging their heels.”

With US/China 26 countries, 39% of emissions. We do need 55/55. Close to entry in force of Paris Agreement. Historic pic.twitter.com/9RYYsDoYVs

— Manuel Pulgar Vidal (@manupulgarvidal) September 3, 2016

The post Reaction: US and China ratify Paris climate agreement appeared first on Climate Home News.

The group of the world’s richest governments will meet on Sunday in Hangzhou. It is expected that the hosts and the US will set the tone by ratifying the climate treaty before other leaders fly in

The Paris agreement sets the upper limit for warming at “well below 2C”. But even 2C will be out of reach unless all G20 countries’ cuts are vastly larger than they promise, said a report from the Climate Transparency consortium of think tanks.

Current commitments to the Paris agreement have the group shaving 15% from their projected carbon emissions by 2030. The report calls this ambition “far from sufficient”. A 2C limit necessitates a cut six times greater by the same point.

Souce: Climate Transparency

Despite some positive signs, the arc of history is taking too long to bend. When it comes to climate change, there is no more important group of nations than the G20. They are responsible for three quarters of the world’s greenhouse pollution. The growth of those emissions is stalling, but not yet falling.

“While global emissions growth may be coming to an end, there is not yet the necessary dynamic to transform the brown fossil-fuel based economy into the green,” said Alvaro Umaña, co-chair of Climate Transparency, and former minister of environment and energy in the renewable energy-rich country of Costa Rica.

The slowdown is being driven, in part, by the renewable revolution. Green energy has grown 18% across the G20 since 2008. The most attractive countries for renewable energy investment are the giant carbon producers China and India.

“[This] is a good signal,” said Jan Burck of Germanwatch, a contributor to the report. “These are the economies where the transition will have the biggest impact on the global climate.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

But the encouragement for investors was not ubiquitous, he said. “France’s reliance on nuclear is stifling the emergence of wind and solar, and Germany’s proposed cap on renewable energy is worrying.”

In addition, the UK government’s premature cuts to subsidies have caused the solar industry to lose more than half its employees. The Australian government is trying to push through legislation to cut $1bn from its renewable innovation fund.

In more encouraging signs, carbon trading, once thought to need a global policy framework in which to succeed, has instead taken off at national and even provincial levels (although the price they set for carbon is generally too low).

In general, the energy intensity and carbon intensity of G20 economies was falling. But not enough to offset economic growth – meaning carbon pollution was still on the rise.

Source: Data from Climate Transparency

As has been noted before, thousands of coal plants that are in various stages of planning or construction across the G20 are simply incompatible with the Paris Agreement.

According to Carbon Brief, the G20 accounts for a staggering 93% of coal use. Niklas Höhne, of NewClimate Institute and a co-author of the report said: “If G20 countries were to rid themselves of their reliance on coal, this would significantly impact their ability to both increase their climate pledges, and get their emissions trajectories on a below 2C pathway.”

Yet, instead of applying pressure to coal, oil and gas, G20 countries continue to pour public money into supporting them. Fossil fuel subsidies were roughly $70bn billion between 2013 and 2014, the report found.

Many countries put significantly more into these industries than they do climate finance. This is despite a G20 pledge to phase out such support. It is hoped, although not expected, that this meeting will result in a clear timeline for the end to subsidies.

The post G20 will blow the Paris climate targets – report appeared first on Climate Home News.

The G20 has already committed to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption” over the “medium term”. In May, the G7 nations pledged to achieve this by 2025.

When the leaders of the 20 largest economies on earth meet in Hangzhou on Thursday and Friday, they must go further, said a joint statement from multinational insurers Aviva, Aegon and Amlin, and commit to an end to assistance for fossil fuel companies within four years.

“Given the urgency of the climate change crisis, underscored by the Paris Agreement reached in December of 2015, the next steps on this commitment are long overdue,” the statement read.

The three insurers manage $1.2tn in assets. Aviva CEO Mark Wilson said: “Climate change in particular represents the mother of all risks – to business and to society as a whole. And that risk is magnified by the way in which fossil fuel subsidies distort the energy market. These subsidies are simply unsustainable.”

Considering the planetary crisis we face, it is completely inappropriate to continue giving billions in tax breaks to fossil fuel companies.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) August 28, 2016

Estimates of fossil fuel subsidies vary widely depending on the definition of a subsidy. The OECD reports that its member states contribute $160-200bn each year to the production of coal, oil and gas.

But the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said this neglects to account for the damage to the environment and human health for which governments carry the cost. The IMF estimates this to amount to a staggering $5.3tn a year, or $10m per minute.

“We’re calling on governments to kick away these carbon crutches, reveal the true impact to society of fossil fuels and take into account the price we will pay in the future for relying on them,” said Wilson.

Analysis: Do asset managers have a duty to reduce their climate risks?

Last year the US and China issued a joint statement in which they said they would use China’s G20 presidency to put a timeline on the phase out.

Shelagh Whitley, research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), said the current G20 pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies was “empty” if it lacked a concrete timeline. ODI’s own estimate puts fossil fuel subsidies at $444bn each year.

“These subsidies fuel dangerous climate change,” said Whitley. “If we are to have any chance of meeting the 2C target set at the Paris climate summit then governments need to start a programme of rapid decarbonisation. The finance sector recognises the importance of moving away from fossil fuels, governments need to realise they may be the only ones left not moving.”

The statement was also signed by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) and Open Energi. It comes six days after 130 investors issued a similar pre-G20 representation. In the US, the Sierra Club has launched a campaign call on the Obama administration to back the same target.

The post Insurers worth $1.2tn tell G20 to stop funding fossil fuels by 2020 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Given we’re heading for the hottest year on record, with scientists linking sea level rise, Arctic melt, drought and flooding to rising greenhouse gas emissions, something needs to be done.

This week’s G20 summit in China will offer a sense of how seriously politicians are taking global warming amidst myriad concerns ranging from a stagnating global economy, war in Syria, Brexit and the South China Sea crisis.

Fresh from last December’s deal in the French capital, it’s a safe bet many heads of government may think they have done their bit on the international stage.

Still, significant moves should be afoot said former White House adviser Andrew Light, now a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, in a media call last week.

“It’s an inescapable truth that the global economy is linked to climate change for worse and for better, and that’s in the wheelhouse of the G20. We expect to see even more intense activity,” he said.

Below I’ve pulled together some of the key initiatives underway this year. Email me on ek@climatehome.org, leave comment below or tweet @edking_CH if you feel I’ve missed something.

Fossil fuel subsidies: So it depends how you calculate how much global subsidies for the oil, gas and coal industries are worth, but totals range from $160 billion (OECD) to $5.3 trillion (IMF) a year. We’re talking anything from direct funding to tax breaks and government-funded price cuts.

“We have to put the pressure on to see if we can get a target before 2020,” Laurence Tubiana, lead negotiator of the Paris Agreement, said in June.

Earlier that month leaders of the G7 said they would aim to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, a decision labelled as “historic” by the London-based Overseas Development Institute. Will the G20 follow suit? It’s unlikely, one EU diplomat who has seen draft decision texts told Climate Home last week.

Others seem more confident. Egypt, Morocco, Ethiopia, Nigeria and yes – India – are among countries to have cut state support for fossil fuels in recent years. “There is growing momentum and international pressure – if the G20 doesn’t deliver it will be a missed opportunity,” said Helen Mountford, head of economics at the WRI.

US election: Potentially the most important event for the climate since Paris. In terms of emissions, it’s a stark choice between Republicans and Democrats. Do you pick the party that says coal is clean, or the one that approved what activists say is the most ambitious climate policy platform on record?

This has global ramifications, according to diplomats. Any chance of a new set of tougher carbon targets before 2020 needs a Clinton win. The US needs a CO2 number on the table for 2030 (it currently just has 2025 sorted) and given its domestic politics that will likely need other countries to raise their game and show it’s not going it alone.

“If it gets other countries on board with new goals then it can be more dynamic, and we all know China lowballed its target for 2030,” said another EU diplomat, also speaking off the record as they were not authorised to comment.

Aviation: If the aviation sector was a country, it would be number 7 in terms of emissions (2%). Should growth rise unrestricted, emissions are projected to triple by 2050. Countries are discussing plans for a global market-based measure to tackle the problem, with a deal expected on 7 October. Despite new CO2 standards for new planes and pledges a cap on net emissions from 2020, it looks a tall order.

HFC coolants: Used in fridges and air conditioning units, HFCs replaced ozone-killing CFCs, but it’s now clear they in turn are busting the climate. And end is in sight, with a meeting of the UN’s Montreal Protocol from 8-14 October slated to see a new agreement to cut their use. According to some analysts, reducing HFCs could cut temperature rises 0.5C by 2100 on business as usual scenarios.

Shipping: Nothing to see here. Shipping accounts for 3% of global emissions, but the London-based International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is an outlier among its UN peers in that it has done virtually nothing to tackle carbon pollution growth. In 2015 Marshall Islands foreign minister Tony de Brum branded the organisation’s stance a “disappointment”. Little changed during talks this year.

Finance: There’s movement on a variety of fronts. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, a G20 initiative, is looking at tougher reporting rules for banks, pension funds and other types of fund manager. A set of voluntary measures will be published in early 2017, although one source said current proposals are weak.

In November a UN committee on climate finance is due to present its findings on the state of cashflow from rich to poor nations and across the developing world. Wealthier countries committed to generating $100bn a year by 2020, and while the OECD said in 2015 they had hit $60bn, many remain unconvinced.

Report: Green Climate Fund to target ‘high risk’ investments

The $10bn Green Climate Fund meets from 18-20 October in Quito and 13-15 December in Apia, Samoa to accelerate disbursement of funds. An initial goal of delivering $2.5bn this year is unlikely to be hit, but pressure remains high on an organisation mandated to generate a ‘paradigm shift’ in green funding.

“The next 12 months are critical for the GCF… the burden rests on board and management to show it can deliver for the countries that need it,” said Paul Bodnar, a former senior Obama White House official and climate finance expert at the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Best of the rest: When it comes to climate change, there’s no shortage of schemes and initiatives coming online, though it’s harder to assess how well they are doing. The billion-dollar Mission Innovation was launched at the Paris climate talks, backed by Bill Gates and the US government among others. It’s still in its formative stages, as this article in ClimateWire explains.

The India-led International Solar Alliance was also announced in Paris, counting 120 countries as members of an organisation that aims to spread the deployment of solar energy and reduce costs. In July the World Bank announced $1 billion of funding for the ISA, but it’s early days.

Marton, a reader from Hungary emails: You have encouraged readers to suggest more points if they feel you missed something. How about mentioning the High Level Panel on Water, a UN-World Bank initiative from Davos in January with the aim to help implement SDG 6 (water goal) as well as the Paris Agreement (mostly the adaptation side of it).

The panel, consisting of 12 people (10 heads of state and gov and 2 advisers including Manuel Pulgar Vidal), will meet in NYC on the margins of the UN general assembly later this month to adopt an action plan. Here is a press release from April on the panel.

The post We’ve only just begun: more climate fights are coming appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Bank of England/Flickr)

By Ed King

Green financing and cash for climate-friendly infrastructure projects will be a priority for September’s G20 meeting in China, the governor of the Bank of England said on Wednesday.

Mark Carney told a gathering of leading bankers in London 2016 was the year to “mainstream” finance tools like green bonds, a market that grew to US$65 billion in 2015.

“It’s a fundamental issue that will go straight up to leaders this year,” said Carney, who surprised many analysts with his strong call for climate action last year.

Under the Canadian, the Bank of England has proved a forceful advocate of businesses disclosing the risks they face from tougher climate policies.

Later this year, a taskforce set up by the Financial Stability Board, which Carney chairs, is primed to recommend companies offer more details about their exposure to oil, gas and coal assets.

The post Mark Carney: G20 to make green finance a ‘priority’ appeared first on Climate Home News.