A few weeks ago, leaders of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) met in Antigua & Barbuda to discuss our next decade of action. This, for us, is the critical decade, no less. We have a few years to change the tides that are swallowing our islands and extinguishing our culture and our identity.  

Pacific Island communities are unwilling witnesses of the climate crisis – emitting minuscule amounts of greenhouse gases while bearing the brunt of the extreme and devastating consequences of the world’s failure to break its addiction to fossil fuels.  

During that meeting, we heard from some G7 leaders that they will support our priorities, that a fossil fuel phase-out and a just and equitable transition is necessary. But these cannot be hollow words. As the single greatest security threat for our region, it is time to implement your commitments or be held accountable for your lack of inaction by carrying the loss of our future generations on your shoulders. 

Just a few months ago, at the UN climate talks in Dubai, countries around the world finally agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. This week in Bonn, any talk of how countries plan to implement this agreement was noticeably absent.

Bonn bulletin: Fossil fuel transition left homeless

But now, G7 nations – Canada, Japan, Italy, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France – are gathering at a historic time for climate politics, holding one of the first opportunities to show their leadership by putting the COP28 decision on fossil fuels into action. 

This will also be the last time these countries meet before they are required to submit updated and enhanced climate plans through to 2035 under the Paris Agreement. It is a final chance for G7 nations to adopt the measures that are necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C. 

Despite having both the capacity and the responsibility to be leaders driving forward a full, fast, fair and funded phase-out of fossil fuels, these countries are not walking the walk – at home or abroad.

Islands as “collateral damage”?

Some G7 countries have plans to massively expand fossil fuel production at home despite science telling us that no new oil, gas, or coal projects are compatible with a safe climate, while others are using billions of the public’s money to finance more fossil fuel infrastructure abroad. 

We are urging G7 nations to demonstrate true leadership at the upcoming negotiations, immediately halting the approval of all new fossil fuel projects and committing to 1.5°C-aligned timelines for phasing out existing fossil fuel reliance in a just and equitable manner.  

This transition must prioritise the needs of developing countries, which bear the brunt of climate change impacts despite contributing the least to its causes. 

G7 coal charade: Funding the fire they claim to fight

G7 countries have already committed to end international public finance for fossil fuel projects but continue approving billions of dollars for fossil fuel infrastructure. They are giving the fossil fuel industry a lifeline, indebting vulnerable countries, and delaying a just energy transition.  

In the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: “The idea that an entire island state could become collateral damage for profiteering by the fossil fuel industry is simply obscene.” 

There is no shortage of public money to enable a just and equitable transition to renewable energy and turn the COP28 agreement into a reality. It is just poorly distributed to the most harmful parts of the global economy that are driving climate change and inequality: fossil fuels, unfair colonial debts, and the super-rich. 

We need G7 countries to pay their fair share on fair terms for fossil fuel phase-out and the other crises we face. Climate finance remains the critical enabler of action – over the course of our meetings in Antigua & Barbuda we heard some G7 countries make commitments and pledges; we also heard a lot of solutions and options that will exacerbate our debt burden.  

But for us, it is clear. Climate finance must be scaled up to meet the trillions of dollars needed for adaptation, mitigation, and addressing loss and damage; and sent to where it is most needed – on fair terms that do not further burden our economies with debt. 

Hold fossil fuel firms to account

The members of the G7 are among the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nations. They have a responsibility to lead the way both at home and abroad. Anything less is hypocrisy and gross negligence, and risks endangering the implementation of the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels. 

The Pacific Island nations have been vocal advocates for ambitious climate action and have led by example for decades. In 2023, our leaders aspired to a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. We embedded the language of phase-out and transition in our leaders’ declaration.   

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

We have felt the impacts of climate change more acutely than most and have consistently called for comprehensive and equitable global action for the very survival of our nations and for the good of all people and species.  

For Pacific Island nations, the transition to clean and renewable energy is not just a goal but a necessity for survival. We call upon the G7 to reflect the highest possible ambition. These countries must acknowledge and support our aspiration for a fossil fuel-free future, setting an example for sustainable development that prioritizes the well-being of people and planet over profit – and ensure that the fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis bear the cost of their actions. 

The time for action is now. The fate of our planet hangs in the balance, and the decisions made by the G7 nations will shape our collective future. We implore them to heed the call of the Pacific Island nations and rise to the challenge of the climate crisis with boldness, ambition and urgency. Our shared future depends on it. 

The post G7 countries must deliver on COP28 promise to cut fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

The G7’s top leaders convene in Italy this week as the world swelters through its 12th hottest month on record. One key issue that needs to be addressed is G7 members’ continued bankrolling of coal, from fossil fuel subsidies to public financing and private investments.

The latest evidence shows that the world’s largest banks – the majority of which are headquartered in G7 nations – continue to pour fuel on the fire of coal expansion.

As the G7 summit approaches, there is a chance for countries to match their rhetoric with action. It is not enough for governments and regulators to “call on” private finance to end their support for coal power. The continued financing of coal by the private sector shows that countries must take concrete steps to implement policies that stem the global flow of funds that fuel the expansion of the coal industry and redirect them to clean energy investments.  

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

While attention is often directed at public fossil fuel subsidies for coal (which are a problem), the billions of dollars in commercial financing for the coal industry’s expansion cannot be ignored. Commercial banks provided a staggering $470 billion to the coal industry between 2021 and 2023 – money that could have otherwise been channelled into clean energy investments, grid infrastructure improvements, and energy efficiency. 

And the majority of this financing comes from financial institutions headquartered in G7 countries. Collectively, these banks provided $101 billion for coal development in the form of loans and facilitated bonds between 2021 and 2023.  

Worst offenders: US and Japan

Topping the list of offenders are US and Japanese banks, which are the largest coal lenders in the world. Bank of America, actually increased its funding of the coal industry by 30% between 2016 and 2023. It provided a whopping $6 billion in loans and facilitation of capital market issuances to the coal industry in the last three years. For perspective, $6 billion is the size of the entire GDP of the Maldives.

Japanese banks are not faring better.  Coal financing between 2021 and 2023 remained dominated by its megabanks, Mizuho ($8.1 billion), MUFG ($6.1 billion) and SMBC ($4.7 billion).  

Estimates suggest that the absolute greenhouse gas emissions associated with the activities financed by commercial banks in G7 countries are more than the combined emissions of Germany, Italy, the UK, and France. While banks do not directly produce all these emissions, they are borne out of their lending and investment activities of companies that they support.  

No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition

The ironic cherry on top is that this amount provided by commercial banks in G7 countries to the coal industry is more than twice the total pledged by the G7-led International Partners Group (IPG) to support the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), an intergovernmental initiative intended to provide technical assistance and financial resources to help developing countries with their clean energy transitions. 

Coal phaseout unclear

Nor is the G7 showing great leadership when it comes to their own coal phaseout plans. The US alone still has over 200 gigawatts (GW) of remaining operational coal capacity alone. While this has been falling, there are also signs that this decline is stalling – 200 GW is more than the entire coal operating capacity of all the JETP recipient countries. And Japan has no clear coal phaseout plan despite its commitment.  

This shows that the capital required for the energy transition is available, but just poorly allocated. Financial regulations, such as stricter capital requirements and outright prohibitions, play a crucial role in redirecting capital and investments towards the energy transition. This must include setting international standards to stem the flow of funds towards the continued expansion of the coal industry and restrict financing to coal developers that continue to contribute to environmental degradation and air pollution.  

Financial regulation

The Italian presidency of the G7 2024 has a responsibility to prioritise climate-forward action across different sectors, including financial regulation. G7 Central Banks need to keep up the pressure on keeping climate action at the forefront of negotiations, and call for more international coordination and standard setting. 

Even if the G7 achieves its coal exit goal by the “first half of the 2030s”, this timeline falls short of what scientists say is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C, a critical threshold to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said last week, “We are in control of the wheel that takes us off the highway to climate hell.” Individual G7 members must take an introspective look at changing outdated policies to adopt strong, binding regulations on private financing for coal.  

The data on private finance for coal is attributable to Urgewald and can be accessed at www.stillbankingoncoal.org.  

The post G7 coal charade: Funding the fire they claim to fight  appeared first on Climate Home News.

He added those countries should be “leading from the front” through much deeper emissions cuts, and bigger and better climate finance.

A day later, the gathering of the most powerful industrialised democracies responded with a tepid outcome, serving up a new commitment on ending coal power generation – weakened by a loophole in the language – a rehash of previous pledges and nothing new on climate finance, this year’s top priority in climate diplomacy.

For the first time, G7 countries all agreed to end the use of coal power generation in their energy systems “during the first half of the 2030s”.

While most members of the bloc are already planning to phase out coal before 2035, the commitment marks a step forward for Japan, analysts said. The Asian nation generates over a quarter of its energy from coal and, alongside Germany and the United States, had previously blocked international efforts towards setting a target date to shut down coal power plants.

Germany has written into its legislation a final target to exit coal by 2038 at the latest, but the government now intends to pull that forward to 2030. The United States unveiled new regulations last week under which coal plants planning to stay open beyond 2039 will have to cut or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2032.

Not enough

But the G7 coal-power agreement struck on Tuesday in Turin, Italy, comes with a caveat that gives countries an alternative choice to phase out coal “in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries’ net-zero pathways”.

Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, Italy’s minister for environment and energy security, told journalists at the end of the summit that the text “for the very first time uses a deadline, wherever possible”.

“G7 countries undertake to phase out the use of coal without jeopardising the various countries’ economic and social equilibrium,” he added.

Researchers say that, even if countries do stick to the mid-2030s deadline, it will not be enough to limit global warming in line with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

G7 countries need to phase out coal from power generation by 2030 at the latest, and gas by 2035, according to a recent analysis done by Berlin-based policy institute Climate Analytics.

G7 climate and energy ministers meet at the Reggia di Venaria Reale in Italy. Photo: G7 Italy

“It’s notable that gas has not been mentioned [in the G7 ministerial agreement],” said Jane Ellis, head of climate policy at Climate Analytics, pointing at increased investment in domestic gas facilities. “This is absolutely the wrong direction to be heading in – both economically and for the climate.”

In their final communique, ministers said that “publicly supported investments in the gas sector can be appropriate as a temporary response, subject to clearly defined national circumstances”, in their efforts to reduce dependency on imported Russian fossil fuels.

They also repeated a previous commitment to eliminate “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 or sooner”, without providing a clearer definition of “inefficient” or details on how that goal would be achieved.

Fossil fuel subsidies across G7 countries hit an all-time high of $199.1 billion in 2022, according to analysis by IISD and the OECD. “It’s very clear they are not going to meet that target,” said Farooq Ullah, senior policy advisor at IISD.

No progress on climate finance

This week’s ministerial meeting in Italy also failed to significantly move the needle on climate finance, as UN negotiations on a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) at COP29 in November are starting to gather pace.

G7 countries said in their final text they “intend to be leading contributors to a fit-for-purpose goal” and acknowledged the need for “mobilising trillions”, but stopped short of making any new financial commitment or offering clear ways forward.

The existing goal is set at $100 billion a year, but developing countries – excluding China – need an estimated $2.4 trillion a year to meet their climate and development needs, leading economists have said in a report commissioned by the Cop26 and Cop27 presidencies.

In order to loosen the purse strings, it is crucial that every minister across government cabinets – and especially finance ministers and treasurers – “push climate action into high gear”, the UNFCCC’s Stiell said on Monday.

But, according to Luca Bergamaschi, director of Italian think-tank ECCO, they appear “not to be caring enough about climate finance”.

“Climate ministers are hitting a wall on climate finance. These decisions rest on finance ministers so they need to step up, and step in, because they have the power and responsibility to do so,” he told Climate Home.

Meetings of G7 finance ministers in mid-May and country leaders in June are seen as last-ditch opportunities to push things forward.

Experts believe an ambitious deal on climate finance at COP29 can play a crucial role in getting developing countries, especially the poorest ones, to commit to stronger action on curbing emissions and boosting adaptation as they draft their new national climate plans due early next year.

The G7 ministers in Italy made a firm pledge to submit their own such plans – called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – by the February 2025 deadline “with economy-wide, absolute reduction targets” that cover all greenhouses gases and sectors “in line with 1.5C”. They also called on other major economies to do the same.

The post G7 offers tepid response to appeal for “bolder” climate action 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.

At a summit in the Japanese city of Hiroshima, leaders approved a document calling “on all parties – especially major economies” to “commit to net zero by 2050” at the latest.

Campaigners have accused them of going against the principle that historical polluters should act faster than developing countries, which have contributed less to the climate crisis.

G7 leaders also urged countries to set targets that are aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

But, according to Climate Action Tracker, none of the G7 countries have targets or policies which are aligned with the 1.5C goal.

Climate Action Tracker lists countries whose plans are compatible with 1.5 in green, “almost sufficient” in yellow, “insufficient” in orange and “highly insufficient” in red

Samoan diplomat and chair of the small islands negotiating group (Aosis) Fatumanava-o-Upolu III Pa’olelei Luteru told Climate Home that the G7 contributed disproportionately to the climate crisis and have “a responsibility to lead the way to net zero”.

“This includes assisting the global south with the financial space and support necessary to make the transition,” he added.

Rich nations have failed to provide the $100 billion a year by 2020 they promised developing countries to help them adapt to climate change and reduce their emissions. G7 countries said they would work together “to fully meet the goal in 2023”.

Climate apartheid

Avantika Goswami, from Indian think tank the Centre for Science and Environment accused the G7 of “climate apartheid”, over their 2050 net zero demands.

Rich nations “understanding” of South African delay to coal plant closures

She said that asking for the same latest net zero date for rich and poor countries goes against the principle that the big, wealthy historic polluters should reduce emissions first and fastest. This is widely accepted in UN climate talks.

She said the G7’s “recurring amnesia” on this principle was “an ongoing trick to deflect attention from their own fossil-heavy economies”. She singled out the US’s oil and gas production and Japan’s coal reliance.

Greenpeace East Asia analyst Li Shuo said the call “reflects where we are with global climate politics, namely a lot of self under-delivery while the expectation on others keeps on growing. The geopolitics these days, highlighting tensions at the expanse of solidarity, risks making the dynamic worse.”

Guterres ignored

The G7’s call adapts a similar proposal from the head of the United Nations António Guterres in March.

He called for developing country members of the G20, like China and India, to reach net zero by 2050. Currently, China targets 2060 while India aims for 2070.

But he also called on the wealthy members of the G20 – which includes all the G7 – to reach net zero “as close as possible to 2040”.

All have so far ignored his call. Germany still has a 2045 net zero date while the US, Canada, Italy, France, the UK and Japan all have a 2050 target.

Walking the talk

In Hiroshima, G7 leaders said all governments should make sure their official climate targets and strategies are "aligned with a 1.5" pathway.

If necessary, they said they should update their official UN 2030 climate plans "as soon as possible and well before [the Cop28 climate talks in November".

All governments signed off on a similar call to update climate plans at the Cop26 climate talks in 2021 - but this was then widely ignored.

Study: Fossil fuel firms owe $209bn a year for climate damage

According to Climate Action Tracker though, none of the G7 have climate plans which are compatible with 1.5C.

They give Canada's plans the worst ranking in the G7 of "highly insufficient", compatible with 3-4C of global warming.

The USA, Japan and the European Union's "insufficient" plans are considered equivalent to 2-3C of global warming while the United Kingdom's "almost sufficient" plans would put the world on course for 1.5-2C.

Gas and coal divisions

The summit revealed G7 divisions on gas and coal. At Germany's urging, the communique offered an endorsement of public investment in gas, a fossil fuel. This endorsement was heavily caveated at the urging of other G7 members.

The leaders failed to set an end date for the use of coal to produce electricity, despite Canada and the UK's climate ministries pushing for a deadline.

UAE appoints fossil fuels execs and climate campaigners as Cop28 advisers

After push-back from the US, EU and Japan, the G7 just agreed to the "phase-out" of "domestic unabated coal power generation" and to "achieving a fully or preominately decarbonized power sector by 2035".

Hosts Japan pushed for an endorsement of their strategy of using low or zero carbon fuels like ammonia and hydrogen to reduce the emissions of coal-fired power stations while keeping the stations running.

But, after resistance from other members, the communique just "note[d]" that "some countries" are "exploring" this and implied that ammonia and hydrogen are better used in sectors like industry and transportation than in producing electricity.

The post G7 calls on all countries to reach net zero by 2050 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Last month climate ministers from the group of wealthy nations stated they are “steadfast in their commitment to … keeping a limit of 1.5°C global temperature rise within reach”.

If they want to stay true to their word, they must close the door to new gas investments, including for hazardous Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), keep their commitment to end international fossil fuel finance, and resist Japan’s push for fossil-fuel based technologies.

End fossil fuel investment

Stopping new gas projects is critical to avoiding the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

The latest reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that maintaining a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires an immediate end to investments in new coal, oil, and gas production and hazardous liquified fossil gas infrastructure.

US backs Indonesian oil refinery despite pledge to end fossil fuel finance

These findings remain unchanged in the context of the war in Ukraine and its impact on global energy markets.

Leaving the door open for new investments in gas is also in direct contradiction to last year’s G7 commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022 “except in limited circumstances … consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit”.

Broken promise

Last month in Sapporo G7 ministers claimed they fulfilled this commitment.

But this is simply not true.

We understand that Italy approved financing for the Santos Basin oil and gas production project in Brazil this year.

The Japanese export credit agency, JBIC, recently approved $393 million for a gas-fired power plant in Uzbekistan.

During a recent visit to Mozambique, Prime Minister Kishida also committed to reviving controversial Mozambique LNG projects which have been associated with local devastation, repression and violence.

A bilateral meeting between Japan’s prime minister Fumio Kishida and the UK prime minister Rishi Sunak. Photo: Number 10

Germany has not yet presented a policy for implementing the commitment to end international fossil fuel finance. The USA has adopted a policy, but it is not public.

The G7 members that have followed through, Canada, the UK and France, are in a strong position to push back against backsliding at the G7 Leaders’ Summit, while supporting fellow members in their implementation efforts.

Redirecting billions towards clean energy

An Oil Change International briefing underlines the importance of advancing this agenda. It shows that between 2020 and 2022 fossil fuel support from G7 countries totalled at least $73 billion. This is almost 2.6 times their clean energy support over the same period.

By upholding last year’s commitments, the G7 can directly shift $24.3 billion a year in public finance out of fossil fuels and into clean energy.  This would raise G7 finance to a sum almost large enough to close the clean energy access gap.

Cop28 moots oil and gas initiative despite greenwash accusations

Rather than promoting outdated and climate-destroying fossil fuel technologies across Asia and Africa, Japan should meet its promise to end international finance for fossil fuels.

It should also ensure that, together with fellow rich countries, it delivers its fair share of climate, loss and damage and just energy transition finance support to the Global South.

Shifting to clean energy and phasing out fossil fuel reliance is critical to permanently bring down soaring energy costs and increase energy security.

Renewable energy technologies are more affordable and can be scaled up more rapidly. They also help avoid fiscal instability linked to volatile fossil fuel prices and stranded asset risks as global gas demand drops.

A plea to Japan

Japan should not be allowed to continue to misuse its position as the G7 host to promote its fossil-fuel heavy energy strategy. Japan, and other G7 countries who are breaking their commitments, are harming our planet, and it is time for the world to hold them accountable.

The only effective answer to the climate crisis and energy security objectives is explicitly ruling out investments in new upstream gas and liquified fossil gas infrastructure, delivering on commitments to end international public finance for fossil fuels and phase-out fossil fuels in line with 1.5°C.

By shifting to renewable energy and phasing out fossil fuel reliance, we can secure a more secure, prosperous future for Africa, Asia, and worldwide. The G7 must act now to ensure a just and equitable transition to a clean energy future.

Elizabeth Bast is the Executive Director of Oil Change International, Tasneem Essop is the Executive Director of the Climate Action Network and Kanna Mitsuta is the Executive Director of Friends of the Earth Japan.

The post G7 leaders must fulfil their promise to stop funding fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

Climate change and energy ministers from G7 countries will meet on April 15-16 in Sapporo, Japan, to discuss efforts to address climate change.

A draft of the G7 statement said ministers would agree that new upstream investments in gas were needed, because of the energy fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia slashed gas deliveries to Europe last year, causing a global supply squeeze and soaring prices in global markets.

“In this context, in this particular contingency, we recognize the need for necessary upstream investments in LNG (liquefied natural gas) and natural gas in line with our climate objectives and commitments,” the draft statement said.

The draft is still being negotiated by the G7 countries, and may change significantly before it is adopted.

World Bank’s private sector arm to stop supporting new coal

Commitment on LNG investments, if kept in the final communique, would be a win for the G7 meeting’s host Japan, which calls LNG a ‘transitional fuel’ to cleaner energy that it says could be needed for at least 10-15 years.

But such investments would run counter to assessments by global energy watchdog the International Energy Agency, which has said no new investments in fossil fuel supply can be made if the world is to stop global warming exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius – the limit that would avoid its most severe impacts.

The world must substantially reduce fossil fuel energy use this decade to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change, the U.N.’s IPCC climate science panel has said. Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel projects would blow the remaining carbon budget to meet the 1.5C goal, according to the IPCC.

G7 climate ministers had said at a meeting last year that investment in the LNG sector was needed to respond to the energy crisis, but they had not explicitly endorsed upstream investments in gas supply.

Migrant workers face risks building Europe’s new gas supplies in the UAE

The G7 had previously pledged to end public support for overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022.

The draft statement said the countries expect demand for LNG to “continue to grow” in countries that can afford to later replace gas with net zero emissions energy sources.

The document revealed pushback from some countries, including the European Union, which opposed the statement that LNG demand will increase. The 27-country EU attends G7 meetings.

Once major buyers of Russian pipeline gas, European countries are racing to diversify their energy sources – replacing Russian gas, in part, with more LNG.

OECD reforms set to give “green” projects better export finance

The draft communique repeatedly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and said the G7 would work with ‘reliable partners’ to reduce dependence on Russia.

In another potential win for energy-poor Japan, the draft communique mentioned ammonia as a hydrogen derivative which could be an “effective emission reduction” tool.

Japan is testing coal co-firing with ammonia as a tool to reduce carbon emissions from thermal power generation and wants to expand the system to as many power plants in the country as possible.

An official dealing with international affairs at the Japanese industry ministry declined to comment on the draft.

The post G7 may ignore climate warnings and call for new gas investments appeared first on Climate Home News.

Details of the agreement to accelerate Vietnam’s energy transition remain unclear even to the southeast Asian nation, according to Sunita Dubey, Vietnam’s country lead for the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (Geapp), which supports the government’s transition plans.

“The terms and conditions for… the funding are not currently clear to the broader development community, including the [Vietnamese] government. We have been asking G7 [countries]. I believe even Vietnam has been asking G7,” Dubey told Climate Home in an interview, lamenting a lack of transparency over the financing arrangements offered by wealthy nations.

She added that the details should be revealed in an investment plan expected later this year.

In December 2022, Vietnam became the third country to agree a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) with a group of wealthy countries and development banks to wean itself off coal, which currently generates most of its electricity.

Criticism over the lack of transparency of the deal follows similar concerns over the secrecy of energy transition agreements struck with South Africa and Indonesia.

Rich nations mobilise $15.5bn for Vietnam’s coal-to-clean transition

The group of donor countries is known as the International Partners Group (IPG). It consists of G7 nations, plus the EU, Norway and Denmark.

The agreement will help Vietnam peak its emissions by 2030 – five years earlier than planned – and enable the country to source close to half of its power from renewable energy.

The funding is due to be mobilised over the next three to five years. Half of the money will come from governments, the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank’s private sector arm.

The rest will come from private investment co-ordinated by the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.

Lack of transparency

Like in Indonesia, the contribution made by each government has not yet been revealed.

Climate Home previously reported on how the details of the Indonesian package are similarly shrouded in secrecy. The breakdown of South Africa’s financing package was kept under wrap until Climate Home obtained a summary of the breakdown.

In all three negotiations, the share of loans versus grants was a key battle line.

“We don’t have any visibility on how it will come, what the grant amounts will be, and for the loans what the concessionality will be,” said Dubey, adding that there’s “no transparency”. Concessionality refers to the terms of loans below market rate.

Geapp collaborates with the Vietnamese government on capacity-building, research and technical assistance for the country’s just energy transition plans.

“The climate crisis is one of the biggest challenges of our times,” Dubey added. “Vietnam became one of a few countries to sign a JETP last year, demonstrating their commitment to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.”

A spokesperson for the European Commission told Climate Home that funding arrangements “will be subject to further discussion among the parties”.

Governments sworn to secrecy on ‘$20bn’ for Indonesia’s energy transition

Jake Schmidt, of the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council, expects the Vietnam deal to mirror the South African one. “I believe grants will be a pretty small percentage, alongside loans with better terms than they would get in the market,” he told Climate Home.

The South Africa deals includes less than 4% of grants.

To receive the funding, the Vietnamese government is tasked with sketching out an outline of the investment opportunities and the measures required to deliver the energy transition. The deal gives Vietnam until November to submit an initial plan.

From coal to clean energy

Vietnam is among the world’s top 20 coal users and currently relies on the fossil fuel for around 50% of its electricity generation.

To deliver on the energy transition deal, the government must first overcome the administrative roadblocks that have thwarted the delivery of its energy plans. The country’s Power Development Plan 8 (PDP-8) - its blueprint for energy policy until 2030 - has been delayed for two years.

“The PDP-8 has to be modified because the drafts circulated before the JETP deal are not consistent with the targets they set in the agreement, especially in regards to coal capacity and gas expansion," said Schmidt.

Some political wrangling is expected. “There are still some forces in Vietnam that want to use more coal and gas," he told Climate Home.

Human rights at the fore

Vietnam’s treatment of climate activists is likely to remain a sticking point during the negotiations.

Vietnam is a one-party system in which, according to leading NGOs, the government has unleashed a “new wave of repression” against its critics. Four prominent environmental rights defenders have been imprisoned since 2021 on spurious tax evasion charges. The UN, the US, Germany and others have condemned the arrests.

The political agreement states the need for media and NGOs to be included in the process “so as to ensure a broad social consensus”. Campaigning groups like Global Witness have criticised the language as “weak”.

The activists' release is unlikely to be a deal-breaker. But Schmidt expects partner countries will continue to put pressure on Vietnam to address the situation.

“Otherwise it just becomes harder and harder to sustain the financing, because this kind of violations will make lawmakers in the US and the EU nervous," he said.

Vietnam's ministry of industry and trade, which is responsible for energy policy, did not respond to a request for comment.

The post Vietnam’s energy transition deal is a ‘black box’, partner warns appeared first on Climate Home News.

At Cop26 last year, six G7 countries agreed to end public finance for fossil fuel projects overseas by the end of 2022 – a commitment which was reaffirmed by G7 environment ministers at a meeting in May, when hold-out Japan joined them.

But G7 leaders meeting in the Bavarian Alps in Germany this week introduced new loopholes to the pledge. In a joint communique published Tuesday, they “stress[ed] the important role increased deliveries of LNG [gas] can play” in accelerating the phase out of their dependency on Russian energy and “acknowledge[d] that investment in this sector is necessary in response to the current crisis”.

“In these exceptional circumstances, publicly supported investment in the gas sector can be appropriate as a temporary response,” the statement adds.

German chancellor Scholz told a press conference: “When it comes to financing fossil sources of energy, this is something that has to come to an end. The future does not lie in gas.” But, he added: “In the short-term, gas is going to be necessary and there can be investments in the transitional phase which are going to have to be supported”.

To stop funding Russia’s war on Ukraine, European countries have sought to boost gas supplies from non-Russian sources including the US, Qatar, Algeria, Norway, Egypt and Israel.

Campaigners call on António Guterres to rescue ‘imperilled’ biodiversity deal

Climate campaigners reacted angrily. Laurie van der Burg, campaigner at Oil Change International, said: “Today, the G7 under the leadership of chancellor Scholz has prioritised filling the pockets of the fossil gas industry over protecting peoples’ lives.”

On the other hand, she said the language makes clear that support for gas must be temporary, consistent with climate objectives, including the 1.5C goal, and not create a lock-in effect.

These conditions shouldn’t allow new gas investments to happen, Van der Burg argued. That’s because new gas infrastructure takes years to build, doesn’t provide a viable solution to rapidly wean off the G7 from Russian gas and isn’t consistent with climate goals.

The International Energy Agency has warned that new investments in coal, oil and gas beyond 2021 were incompatible with a pathway to limit global heating to 1.5C.

Luca Bergamaschi, director of the Italian climate think tank ECCO, agreed that the climate conditions and competition from clean alternatives “mean there is little to no investment case for new gas” without them being “artificially subsidised”.

For Gareth Redmond-King of the UK-based Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, the statement reflects G7 nations’ “responsibility to feed people and keep the lights on”. “Short-term surges in fossil fuels can, as the EU is showing, be trumped by more ambitious emissions pledges in the medium-term,” he said.

Japanese and Korean industry push gas on Vietnam amid campaigner crackdown

An earlier version of the text, seen by Climate Home News, shows a proposal to describe new gas investments as “can/could be necessary”. Sources close to the talks, told Climate Home Scholz had directly proposed the wording, backed by Italy and opposed by the UK and France.

On a recent visit to Senegal, Scholz said that supporting the West African country’s gas production plans was “a matter worth pursuing intensively“. Senegal’s leader Macky Sall was invited to the G7 summit along with the president of gas-producing Argentina Alberto Fernández and the leaders of India, Vietnam and Indonesia.

Italy’s president Mario Draghi told a G7 press conference: “It’s quite clear that in the present situation, we’ll have short-term needs that will require large investments in gas infrastructure in developing countries and elsewhere. But we have to make sure that they can be retrofitted to carry hydrogen so that’s a way to reconcile short-term needs with long-term climate needs”.

On the sidelines of the summit, Draghi met with his Argentinian counterpart Fernández. The two men discussed the possibility of Italy “participating in existing projects in Argentina to install gas liquefaction plants and export it,” Fernández said in a tweet.

The G7 further confirmed it was pursuing ‘just energy transition partnership’ agreements with India, Vietnam, Indonesia and Senegal as well as previously-announced talks with South Africa.

Con el presidente del Consejo de Ministros de Italia, Mario Draghi, dialogué sobre la posibilidad de que su país participe en los proyectos existentes en la Argentina para instalar plantas de licuación de gas y exportarlo.

Seguiremos potenciando los intercambios. pic.twitter.com/LO3O75GV5o

— Alberto Fernández (@alferdez) June 27, 2022

Climate finance watcher Joe Thwaites noted that countries which have pledged to end international fossil fuel finance currently spend around $33bn a year backing coal, oil and gas projects abroad. OECD data suggests that that this $33bn would be enough to plug the gap to the $100bn a year rich countries have promised to support developing countries in addressing climate change.

Transferring the fossil fuel finance to clean climate finance would close the gap, Thwaites said, adding: “Hard to think of a better deal: end fossil fuel financing that’s driving the climate crisis and use it to increase funding for clean energy access in developing countries. A genuinely rare win-win.”

In the communique, G7 leaders promised to “intensify our efforts” to deliver on the $100bn goal “as soon as possible”.

A recent Overseas Development Institute (ODI) report found that “the US is overwhelmingly responsible for the climate finance gap”. In 2020, it gave just $2bn in climate finance when its “fair share” is $43bn, according to calculation that includes the size of its economy and historical emissions.

ODI’s research found that Italy, the UK and Canada were each $3bn short of their fair share. Germany, France and Japan give more than their fair share but the report questions the quality of France and Japan’s finance, as much of it is loans.

This article was amended on 4 July 2022 to clarify the gap to the $100bn climate finance target.

The post Germany, Italy push G7 into watering down pledge to end overseas gas finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

It means that Japan joins the other G7 members, which already adopted a near-identical commitment at the 2021 UN climate conference, in shifting its public finance to clean energy. This is significant. Japan is the second largest provider of public finance for fossil fuels, pouring $11 billion into dirty overseas fossil fuel projects each year.

The commitment is also a welcome reaffirmation of the Glasgow promise for the other G7 members. Amidst worrying signals of backsliding – mainly from Germany and Japan – we urge the G7 to not water down the ministerial commitment at next week’s summit.

Prioritising public finance for clean energy and energy efficiency is critical to mitigate the climate crisis and meet energy security and development needs.

Japanese and Korean industry push gas on Vietnam amid campaigner crackdown

By fulfilling its commitment, the G7 commitment can shift $33 billion each year from fossil fuels to clean energy. This would go a long way towards meeting at least the mitigation finance part of the still unfulfilled pledge to invest $100 billion annually to support climate action in developing nations.

This shift is also critical to meeting energy security and development goals as clean energy and energy efficiency solutions provide the best near and long-term options for building a more secure, sustainable and safe future. However, the commitment appears to not yet be a done deal.

In recent weeks there have been signals of countries potentially backsliding by investing in gas and LNG to replace Russian supply. Chancellor Scholz has been recorded saying that he intensively wants to pursue gas projects in Senegal. We hear from G7 negotiators of other G7 countries that Germany even tries to weaken in this regard the official G7 text which would undermine the 1.5C-limit. The Japanese government seems to believe that, despite its G7 pledge, it can continue financing upstream oil and gas projects.

For Germany’s new government, the first time G7 host, a weakening of the ministerial commitment to shift finance in the G7 leader’s statement would be a particularly bad look as well as for Japan. The Japanese government has already played a critical role in watering down the commitment, carving out exceptions to purportedly help countries meet their climate goals and for national security, while these would have quite the opposite effect.

Colombia’s new president Gustavo Petro pledges to keep fossil fuels in the ground

Japan will need to make a dramatic u-turn to meet its commitment to end finance to all fossil fuels by the end of this year.

The Japanese government has been driving the expansion of gas infrastructure across Asia and globally. Last May, Japan announced the Asia Energy Transition Initiative (AETI), which includes $10 billion in financial support to develop LNG demand in Asia.

In April, Japan agreed to help the Indonesian government develop hydrogen, ammonia, and carbon capture for “realistic energy transitions.” Japanese Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is now planning a feasibility study on utilising ammonia at the Suralaya coal-fired power station. This Suralaya complex is next to the controversial Jawa 9 & 10 coal plants, where communities are already suffering from high levels of air pollution and damage to the sea and local fishing industry.

Prime Minister Kishida considers plans to export technology to capture carbon and co-fire ammonia at coal power plants “the key to decarbonizing while still using fossil fuels”.

Japan’s continued promotion of fossil fuel expansion threatens its own economy and energy security, especially in light of volatile gas prices. It also undermines the energy and climate security of countries in Asia. Five out of the top ten countries with the highest climate risk are in South and Southeast Asia.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

As G7 leaders come together, we need them to address the multiple crises we are facing around energy security, climate, food security and the war in Ukraine. Plans to focus on building new gas infrastructure to improve energy security are shortsighted.

Research shows that with sufficient investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and through utilizing existing LNG infrastructure, there is no need for investment in new LNG infrastructure to replace Russian supply. Clean energy solutions can be deployed quickly without the price volatility, stranded asset risks and time required to develop new fossil fuel infrastructure.

This moment requires unfaltering leadership, courage and vision. The G7 ministerial commitment must not be watered down, and it must not be another empty promise. We need G7 leaders to stand firm in their commitment to end public finance for overseas fossil fuels and to shift investment to clean energy. This will help build the more peaceful, sustainable, equitable and energy secure future we so desperately need.

Thuli Makama is the Africa programme director for Oil Change International, Zenzi Suhadi is the executive director at the Indonesian NGO WALHI National and Christoph Bals, is the policy director at Germanwatch 

The post Germany, Japan must not water down G7 commitment to end fossil fuel finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

Following a three-day meeting in Berlin, the G7’s energy and environment ministers issued a statement on Friday committing to these goals and supporting “an accelerated global unabated coal phase-out”.

It marked the biggest shift in policy for fossil fuel-reliant Japan. An annotated draft seen by Climate Home News showed that Japan had tried to remove both commitments from the communique but European countries and Canada defended them.

“There is no wavering in our commitment to 1.5C… the need for action on decarbonisation was reaffirmed at the G7,” said Japan’s environment minister Toshitaka Ooka at a press conference.

Japan takes over the G7 presidency next year. Ooka said energy issues would be “the most critical challenge”. 

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Analysts and campaigners described the statement as a gamechanger for global decarbonisation efforts.

“The end of unabated coal power AND GAS POWER is now coming into sight,” Ember’s Dave Jones tweeted.

Price of Oil campaigner Laurie Van Der Burg said Japan signing up to the communique was “an important breakthrough” as the country has been “very aggressively backing the expansion of gas in Asia but also worldwide.”

Japan is one of the world’s top financiers of fossil fuels and had been the only G7 nation not to sign up to a pledge at last year’s Cop26 summit to halt that flow. Between 2018 and 2020, Japan provided $10.9bn a year to fossil fuel projects in other countries. This is far higher than finance provided by the US or European G7 members and slightly less than Canada.

It was also the only country not to have a plan to phase fossil fuels out of its electricity system by 2035. By 2030, it aims to get 59% of its electricity from renewables and nuclear power. In 2020, 70% of Japan’s electricity was generated from gas and coal, with just 20% coming from renewables.

African nations’ dash for gas exposes division at the UN and ‘hypocrisy’ in Europe

Jones described a 2035 target as a “challenge” but “definitely achievable” for Japan. “The obvious place to start is scaling up rooftop solar and wind energy, which could help Japan create a far more secure and sustainable energy system by 2035,” he said. 

“Replacing fossil fuels with clean energy with the speed required will be a challenge for Japan,” said Hanna Hakko, senior analyst at E3G. “Additional modelling and policy planning will be urgently needed.”

But campaigners were positive about the direction of travel. “The language in the statement is strong and goes beyond the Japanese government’s previous position,” Kimiko Hirata, executive director of Climate Integrate told Climate Home News.

While Japan has not committed to phase out coal – its current energy plan forecasts that 19% of its electricity will come from coal in 2030 – Hirata said the 2035 decarbonisation target implied a coal exit. “This is totally new for Japan,” Hirata said, calling for stronger language on coal phaseout at next month’s leaders’ summit.

“Ending international fossil fuel finance is also a big step,” said Hirata. “Japan is subsidising gas exploration. Can they stop everything by 2022? This is a big question mark.”

“The renewed Japanese ambition and the new government in Australia should help supercharge Asia’s electricity transition, and will surely force a rethink in Korea to step up,” Jones told Climate Home News.

The post G7 pushes Japan to speed up clean energy transition at home and abroad appeared first on Climate Home News.

The German presidency’s first priority, set before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is a “sustainable planet” – with an emphasis on keeping the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature goal in reach.

Understandably, energy security has risen up the agenda. This presents a chance to double down on clean energy – and a risk of reverting to dirtier sources.

Russian aggression has forced the world, and Europe in particular, to rethink its relationship with fossil fuels. For example gas, which only in February was proposed to be labelled as “sustainable” by the European Commission, is now the fuel of Vladimir Putin’s war efforts. European governments are under pressure from their constituencies, and their wallets, to get off gas as quickly as possible.

Fossil fuel price volatility has led to clean investments that only six months ago looked a little too expensive, becoming substantially more attractive. People here in Germany are rushing to buy heat pumps and electric vehicles, not because they want to reduce emissions, but because it will save them money.

It’s obvious that wind and solar are the cheapest options for electricity generation, especially in G7 countries. Renewables do not rely on fuel from volatile international markets, and offer numerous co-benefits, like clean air and new jobs.

Extinction Rebellion inspires Shell safety consultant to jump ship

I cannot overstate the importance of this moment in the energy transition. The G7 has the opportunity to seriously accelerate decarbonisation hand in hand with economic and security aims. They need to seize this chance.

So far, no major emitter has aligned its domestic and international commitments with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. With current climate targets we are headed for a staggering 2.4C of warming – and that’s only if governments meet those targets. If they don’t, warming will be worse.

In 2019 the G7 was responsible for just over a fifth of annual greenhouse gas emissions. Last year G7 governments committed to halving their emissions from 2010 levels by 2030. This, it seems to be assumed, is in line with the global aim of roughly halving emissions by 2030, a benchmark set out in the latest science on what is needed to keep 1.5C in reach.

But this does not recognise the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” that is foundational to the Paris Agreement and subsequent international climate accords. In other words, the fact that rich and high-emitting nations can, and need, to move faster than others.

G7 countries must be first movers on all fronts of decarbonisation in order to buy time for those developing countries who will need longer to complete their energy transitions, and to generate spill-over benefits for other economies.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Climate Analytics’ latest analysis, based on a set of mitigation scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), show that in 2030 the G7’s collective emissions actually need to be in the range of 54-66% below 2010 levels (excluding land-use). If emissions and carbon sequestration from the land sector are included, the reduction to 2030 is likely to be in the upper part of this range.

The G7 would therefore need to reduce emissions by at least 60% by 2030 to do their part to limit warming to 1.5C.

Easy wins can come from ending fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible. The IPCC’s Working Group III report told us this could reduce global emissions by up to 10% by 2030, while at the same time improving public revenue and macroeconomic performance.

We are already aware that some member states are working against a statement that would commit them to the kind of action necessary. An initial draft from G7 ministers, leaked to media in Japan at end of April, proposed a commitment to phase out coal by 2030.

However the German chancellor’s spokesperson has already distanced his government from this commitment, citing gas supply uncertainty. In its newly released REpowerEU strategy, the EU has said it may see the prolonged use of existing coal capacity. Japan, with its heavy reliance on coal generation since the Fukushima disaster, has also apparently pushed back on the idea.

IPCC: Five takeaways from the scientific report on limiting global heating

But the science is not flexible. 1.5C scenarios see advanced economies phase out coal power generation by 2030. Gas use in power generation should peak and start to rapidly decline in the 2020s, to be effectively phased out by 2035.

For the G7 countries, electricity generation will have to be entirely net zero by 2035.

To ignore this chance to invest in the energy transition and instead fund fossil fuel infrastructure that at best would have a lifespan of 10-15 years – or else would continue to drive emissions beyond what the world can handle – would be a dangerous act of negligence.

At Cop26, governments made a collective commitment to accelerate climate action by revisiting and strengthening their 2030 targets this year to align with the 1.5C goal. The Elmau G7 meeting is an ideal place for an act of leadership by the wealthier countries in the world.

Claire Fyson is head of mitigation pathways at Climate Analytics.

The post Russia’s war is no excuse for G7 ministers to duck their climate responsibilities appeared first on Climate Home News.

Up until now, the Environment Ministry took the lead on international climate negotiations and mobilised finance through its flagship International Climate Initiative. This initiative however has not always been perfectly in sync with German energy policy – especially when it comes to energy security and weaning itself off foreign fossil fuel suppliers.

In the absence of central climate policy leadership or backing of the Chancellery or the Foreign Office, different ministries too often have worked in silos with different arms of government, often led by different political parties, largely pursuing their own strategies. Climate considerations have rarely (if ever) been mainstreamed into trade, international financial markets, or agricultural policy. This lack of coordination has meant that Germany has punched well below its weight in terms of driving climate action internationally.

Geopolitical tensions have grabbed headlines, but the new foreign minister Annalena Baerbock and the Federal Foreign Office must not forget that they are also now responsible for representing Germany in international climate negotiations.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action led by fellow Green Robert Habeck will lead domestic climate policy with important implications for international energy and trade policy. The bulk of German climate finance flows through the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, led by the former environment minister Svenja Schulze.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Effective climate diplomacy demands that these three work well together and that they have the full backing from the Federal Chancellery. Ministries for the environment, finance, agriculture, and others with international climate relevant programmes must also toe the line.

Encouragingly, the coalition agreement clearly called for “aligning climate, energy, and economic policy on the national, European and international level with the objective of limiting warming to 1.5C”. Further, the German G7 presidency programme highlights climate and sustainability almost throughout. The appointment of the former Greenpeace International head Jennifer Morgan as the Special Climate Envoy in the German Foreign Office sends an important signal that the new government is serious about climate diplomacy.

However, there are issues that have already risked undermining Germany’s reputation, including its slow coal phase out and fence-sitting on fossil gas. The country until recently adamantly supported and defended construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It also supports classifying gas as a “sustainable activity” under the EU’s so-called taxonomy rules. Explaining to developing countries that they should go all in for decarbonisation is a tall order if Germany is in a dash for gas. Australian LNG producers are already pushing to expand exploration in response.

Considering the somewhat rocky start, it is even more important for Germany to walk the talk at home but also to act decisively, strategically, and with one voice abroad.

Germany backs gas as “transition” fuel in EU green finance guidelines

Reducing dependency on fossil gas with energy efficiency and electrification with renewables will buy more room for geopolitical manoeuvre. Similarly, these two key areas should be central pillars for an international climate action club dedicated to a race to the top.

The bar for club membership should be set high – in line with decisive efforts needed to keep the 1.5C goal alive. Aspiring developing country club members will need help in joining, for example via the German government’s proposed climate partnerships. These can build on the example of last year’s deal to support South Africa to phase out coal in the context of a just transition.

Here, Germany could take the lead by mobilising partners to negotiate similar agreements with others. These need to crowd in investments from the private sector as part of a broader green recovery while pulling in the G7 and multilateral development banks. Considering the growing list of weather disasters linked to climate change, adaptation, resilience, and loss-and-damage will also grow as key issues in foreign relations that will demand prioritisation.

Despite geopolitical tensions and recent stumbles, Germany cannot afford to lose sight of the imperative climate action in this critical decade. Considering Germany’s place in the world and its presidency of the G7, it is essential that the new German government step up to give the world a fighting chance of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C.

Aki Kachi is a specialist on climate finance and carbon markets at NewClimate Institute.

The post Germany needs a more joined-up climate diplomacy strategy 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.

A three-day summit, presided over by the UK, will bring together leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US at the seaside resort of Carbis Bay in Cornwall from Friday.

Support for poorer nations to roll out Covid-19 vaccines, address unsustainable debt and accelerate climate investments are critical to leverage higher ambition at Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow five months later, experts say.

“The political alignment to ask countries to come [to Cop26] and signal that they’re going to do more without indicating where the resources and the solidarity are going to come from becomes an ever smaller eye of the needle for [Cop26 president designate] Alok Sharma to walk through,” said Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

While the issues have been on the G7 agenda for months, ministers have left the hardest decisions to heads of government.

At a two-day meeting in London over the weekend, finance ministers merely reaffirmed a commitment to “increase and improve our climate finance contributions through to 2025”, without putting numbers on the table.

Flooding and drought fuels mental health crisis in Kenya

“This was actually the opportunity for finance ministers to come up to the plate and talk about sort of amounts [of finance] and creativity in terms of instruments,” said Kyte.

Rich nations pledged a decade ago to collectively mobilise $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020. While official data will not be available until 2022, the UN estimates donors will fall $20bn short.

UN chief António Guterres has called on the major economies to double their finance pledges at the G7 summit. So far, the UK and the US are the only members to have set out plans to double their pledges to 2025.

Kyte said: “The question for the leaders’ summit is if not the G7, then who? and if not now, then when? This is a consequential week for British foreign policy and climate leadership.”

Nick Mabey, chief executive of think tank E3G, said the G7 was “on a knife-edge” on whether it will deliver the financial package needed for a successful outcome at the Cop26 climate talks.

The success of Cop26 as a “transformational moment” for climate ambition hinges on the delivery of climate finance, he said. “Unless we deliver on support for developing countries, there won’t be any space for climate ambition in Glasgow. We will only be talking about finance. The G7 is the last moment in the year to deliver that package on finance”.

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

The UK government has made mobilising new climate finance pledges a centrepiece of its G7 diplomacy. Despite putting pressure on chancellor Angela Merkel, whose 16 years in office come to an end in September, to announce greater climate finance, its demands have so far fallen flat.

Canada, France, Italy and Japan “talk a good game” but are yet to make new climate pledges, said Kyte. The US has doubled its financial commitment but from “an extremely low base” and needs to step up its pledge ahead of Cop26, said Peter Betts, a former lead negotiator for the UK and the EU and an associate fellow at Chatham House.

In the UK, prime minister Boris Johnson is facing a revolt inside his Conservative party over the government’s decision to cut aid spending from 0.7 to 0.5% of gross national income during the pandemic. Despite promises that climate aid would be ringfenced, some climate research projects are suffering.

The move “reduces the credibility of the UK in pushing other donors to do more” and could impact the alliance-building the UK will need to land a robust agreement at Cop26, said Betts.

“The bulk of the world’s emissions actually now come from emerging economies, not from developed countries. If you want to have any kind of credibility with those countries you need vulnerable countries with you,” he said.

Comment: The EIB won’t become a climate bank until it fully stops supporting fossil fuels

For Graça Machel, former education and culture minister of Mozambique and co-founder of The Elders, ensuring equitable vaccine roll out is a precondition to gaining the trust of developing nations in the climate talks.

While richer nations have hoarded jabs and rolled out mass vaccination programmes, only 2% of Africans have so far been vaccinated, she said.

And while wealthy governments spent trillions on Covid-19 stimulus packages, debt-laden, climate-vulnerable nations have been left unable to recover from the pandemic, let alone invest in climate action.

“We are in a situation where investments for the developing world is diminishing. We are in a situation where aid is being cut – the UK is one example.

“The impact of climate change, cannot be addressed only focusing on the developed world. It has to be equally focusing in the developing world, because either we are all safe or no one is safe,” said Machel.

Last week, prime minister Johnson called on G7 leaders to make concrete commitments to vaccinate the entire world against coronavirus by the end of 2022.

The post G7 leaders told solidarity with poorer nations is critical to Cop26 success appeared first on Climate Home News.

Following a two-day virtual meeting, climate and environment ministers from the UK, US, Japan, Canada, Germany, France and Italy agreed to enshrine the tougher goal of the Paris Agreement as the benchmark for climate action.

In a communique published on Friday, ministers said “investments in unabated coal must stop now” and committed to “an absolute end to new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021”.

“This commitment, I believe, sends a clear signal to the world that coal is on the way out,” said Cop26 president designate Alok Sharma.

Last week, Sharma said the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow in November had to be the moment the world “consigns coal to history“.

Ministers also agreed to phase out direct government support for carbon intensive fossil fuel projects overseas “except in limited circumstances at the discretion of each country” and in a way which would “keep 1.5C within reach”.

US special envoy for climate change, John Kerry, said this was the first time G7 nations “have unified and been able to come up with a public statement on 1.5C”. He praised Japan for taking “important steps to find unity on the road ahead”.

After initially resisting language on ending coal finance, Japan came on board with the group of major economies, sending a strong signal of the accelerating shift away from coal across Asia. The move leaves China isolated as the last major funder of coal projects overseas.

Comment: What the IEA net zero roadmap means for businesses and governments

The breakthrough on ending coal finance comes just days after the International Energy Agency found that investments in new oil and methane production as well as unabated coal power need to end this year for the global energy sector to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

“None of us want any more new coal-fired power plants to be built in the world and we do not want to finance such projects any longer,” Germany’s environment minister Svenja Schulze told a press conference.

Governments committed to work to cut emissions towards “overwhelmingly decarbonised power systems in the 2030s” but added that methane gas “may still be needed during the clean energy transition on a time-limited basis”.

Neither the UK, US nor Germany explicitly ruled out making new investments in oil and methane gas during a press conference following the virtual meeting. The UK has recently green lighted a new round of oil and gas permits in the North Sea. In Canada, fossil fuel expansion has led emissions to rise since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

“It’s 1.5C that governs the choices that we have to make over the next 10 years. Different countries will have different moments when to make which cuts, but the market is already moving in that direction,” Kerry said.

Dave Jones, senior electricity analyst at the UK-based think tank Ember, said ending coal power was “the essential first” to decarbonise the power sector by 2035 but it had to be followed up with a gas power phase out.

As of May 2021, 59% of G7 coal power capacity has either closed since 2010 or is scheduled to retire by 2030 – a trend which E3G says shows the EU, the UK and the US are on track for a zero-carbon power system by 2035.

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

Ministers said they were “working intensively to increase the quantity of finance for climate mitigation and adaptation actions” but left to finance ministers and leaders, who are meeting next month, the task to quantify how much cash they are ready to put on the table.

The UK has made scaling up climate finance a core pillar of its G7 presidency and its ability to leverage other major economies to commit to new finance pledges will be seen as a critical test of its diplomacy.

Earlier this year, UN secretary general António Guterres called on G7 nations to double their climate finance commitments at the leaders summit in Cornwall, UK, next month. So far, only the UK and the US have committed to do so.

UN deputy secretary-general Amina Mohammed told ministers on Friday the UN remained “deeply concerned about the public finance gap and the lack of concrete support for adaptation”.

“Ensuring that developing countries have access to public finance now to fight the triple crises of Covid-19, debt, and climate is absolutely necessary,” she said.

And rich nations are yet to mobilise $100bn a year to help developing nations cut their emissions and cope with climate impacts. The UN estimates developed countries remain $20bn short of the goal.

Jennifer Tollmann, senior policy advisor at think tank E3G, said the meeting was “a step change from the last four years and lays the foundation for the G7 to become an engine for keeping 1.5C in reach”.

She warned that G7 countries must bridge a “significant solidarity gap” as they meet again next month and reach an agreement on ramping up climate finance, ensuring vaccines for developing countries and phasing out all funding for overseas fossil fuel projects. These, she said, have emerged as “clear credibility tests going into the June G7 summit”.

The post G7 commits to end unabated coal finance in 2021 to ‘keep 1.5C within reach’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the closing session of a virtual summit on Wednesday, Alok Sharma, president designate of the Cop26 climate talks, told ministers from developing and donor countries that the UK’s foreign secretary Dominic Raab will make the issue a priority at the meeting of rich nations this summer. 

According to a readout from the event, the UK told ministers it intended to secure additional finance pledges. 

Sharma said fulfilling a promise by rich nations to mobilise $100 billion a year to support climate action in developing countries was “vital” and had to be “a floor and not a ceiling” for future pledges.

More than 50 representatives from donor countries, emerging economies, developing nations, small island states and multilateral institutions attended the ministerial. China, which had been invited to the meeting, was notably absent. 

The one-day summit aimed to rebuild trust between the world’s poorest and richest nations and find practical steps to address climate and development challenges. The UK said it would enable developing nations to “set the international agenda” ahead of Cop26. 

Under fire over aid cuts, UK hosts summit to help vulnerable nations fund climate action

Issues raised by climate-vulnerable nations during the meeting were not new. There remains an annual $70 billion gap for addressing global climate impacts and currently only one fifth of climate finance goes to adaptation projects. According to charity Care International, rich nations may have inflated how much funding they spend on helping the poorest cope with climate impacts. 

Developing countries highlighted difficulties in accessing available finance from multilateral institutions such as the Green Climate Fund, according to a summary of the meeting.

Sharma said the UK would work with Fiji to create a taskforce to improve access to climate finance and better align funding with countries’ climate goals. The group is expected to recommend new finance mechanisms that could be piloted in some countries ahead of Cop26. 

Another meeting of ministers to make progress on finance is also anticipated ahead of the climate talks, due to be held in Glasgow, UK, in November.

Sharma praised ministers’ “tangible desire to find answers”. “I hope that these discussions have given confidence to our friends from the countries and communities most vulnerable to climate change. I can assure you that I will be absolutely focused on putting the results of our meeting today into effect,” he said.

“We call for strong international cooperation and solidarity to fight the climate crisis.” – @FMBhutan at CDM. We welcome countries and partners taking forward actions to scale up and improve access to #ClimateFinance and support vulnerable communities respond to climate impacts

— LDC Chair (@LDCChairUNFCCC) March 31, 2021

UN deputy secretary-general Amina Mohammed said Cop26 had to provide a “major breakthrough on adaptation and resilience”. 

She called on all donor countries to commit to directing at least 50% of their climate finance towards adaptation before the G7 meeting in June. She urged the US, Canada, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and the UK to double their public climate finance for the period 2021-2025 and double the share of grant-based funding.

In a dig at the UK, she insisted all G7 nations had to spend 0.7% of their national income on overseas development assistance. The UK is the only nation in the group of rich countries to have cut its aid in response to the pandemic.

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

Throughout the meeting, vulnerable nations insisted on the importance of finding solutions for them to avoid and recover from existing loss and damages caused by storms, flooding and drought.

The UK said it would hold three consultations this year to set up the Santiago Network, a framework to discuss the issue, which countries agreed to establish in 2019 at the last climate talks in Madrid, Spain.

In their updated climate plans submitted to the UN, a growing number of developing and small island states called on rich nations to provide more finance to help them deal with economic losses and other damages associated with global warming. 

“Nearly a decade of UN climate negotiations have failed to deliver finance to compensate the vulnerable countries already being devastated by the loss and damage caused by climate change. Cop26 is a chance to put that right,” said Action Aid climate advisor Harjeet Singh.

As part of discussions on debt relief, Italy told the meeting it was working to build a consensus among G20 nations for an extension of the existing debt service suspension to the end of 2021.

Mohammed, of the UN, warned that “extensive debt relief” was essential for a green recovery from the pandemic. “We cannot deliver a decade of transformation when so many developing countries face crushing levels of debt,” she said. 

The post UK pledges to make scaling up adaptation finance a priority at G7 summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

Biden’s team are hostile to prime minister Boris Johnson because of his perceived similarity to Donald Trump, his Brexit policy and personal criticism of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

Despite this, analysts told Climate Home that Biden would be “pragmatic” and the two governments were likely to work closely together to increase the world’s climate action at November’s COP climate talks in Glasgow.

Both Biden and Trump have emphasised the similarities between Johnson and Trump. In December 2019, Biden said that Johnson was a “physical and emotional clone” of Trump. The outgoing president dubbed Johnson “Britain Trump” and praised him for taking the UK out of the EU.

Several members of Biden’s transition team have anonymously briefed against Johnson to the British media and  Tommy Vietor, who worked with Biden in Obama’s White House, called Johnson a “shape-shifting creep” who had made “racist comments about Obama”.

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1325137653851828230

In 2016, Johnson wrote that Barack Obama had removed a bust of Winston Churchill and that “some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire”. He likened Hilary Clinton to a “sadistic nurse in a mental hospital” in an article supporting her 2008 Presidential campaign.

Joe Biden wins the White House, in pivotal moment for global climate action

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said that Biden’s decades of experience in politics meant he was likely to be “pragmatic” about these comments. “The big thing will be how the government plays things from now on,” he said.

This was echoed by US Senator Chris Coons, an ally of Joe Biden and contender for the role of secretary of state. He told the BBC that, while he didn’t like the “part-Kenyan” comment, “rather than re-litigating or revisiting comments that may have been made days or years ago, I think [we will] reimagine our engagement with our vital allies around the world.”

In a brief message of congratulations to Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris, Johnson said he looked forward to working together on the shared priority of climate change. He repeated this theme in a later interview, saying: ““With President Biden in the White House . . . we have the real prospect of American global leadership in tackling climate change”. The UK’s Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told the BBC that he had spoken to Coons and that cyber, security and climate change were areas the two countries could co-operate on.

Congratulations @JoeBiden and @KamalaHarris pic.twitter.com/xrpE99W4c4

— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) November 7, 2020

Speaking before the US election, the chair of the UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Tugendhat told a webinar that climate change was a way for the UK government to repair its relations with Biden. He said: “If we’re sensible, what we will see is the UK offering the Biden White House a very generous share of the Cop talks in order to bring them in. Will it work? I don’t know but, at the moment, given the frostiness of the relationship between the putative White House and the actual Number 10 it does seem as though something will be needed.”

Biden promised to expose ‘climate outlaws’. Here’s who could make his list

Peter Betts, a Brit who previously led climate negotiations for the EU, told Climate Home that prospects for UK-US cooperation on climate change were “excellent”. He said: “A forward-leaning US administration will considerably increase the chances of major progress on climate issues, from NDC [climate plan] enhancement, to green recovery and debt relief, to reform of the international financial institutions.”

The UK has an opportunity to coordinate on these issues as conveners of the G7 in 2021, said Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School and former sustainable energy representative for the UN secretary general. However, she added the US’ focus would be on its relationships with the EU and China. “The UK has to accept that outside the EU it is on the edge of that critical three-way partnership.”

Black agreed. “Where does the Johnson government find a foothold in that?” he asked. “It can play most effectively if it is seen to be working hand in hand with the EU on climate change.” The UK and EU are approaching the end of drawn-out and heated negotiations over what trading arrangements will come into force when the UK fully leaves the EU on 1 January 2021. “If they’re still arguing next year then I think that will cast a real shadow on UK relationships with the US across all subjects,” Black said.

Black said that the UK should follow the French example from the 2015 Paris Agreement to avoid being “sidelined at its own summit”. “At Paris, the big thing was the US-China relationship which was then supplemented by lots of good diplomacy done by the French,” he said.

UK-US relations will also be shaped by trade deal negotiations. As it leaves the EU, the UK government is keen to secure free trade deals and the one with US is seen as the most important. According to Clare Healy, who has worked for the British Labour Party and the US Department of Energy, if the UK was to “hardwire” climate change into its trade deal, that might impress the Biden administration.

The post UK looks to Cop26 climate summit to fix awkward relationship with Biden appeared first on Climate Home News.

Despite record wildfires in the Amazon and president Jair Bolsonaro previously saying his government lacked the money to fight the blazes, the Brazilian government suggested it will reject the offer.

Foreign minister Ernesto Araujo said on Twitter that a new initiative for the Amazon was not needed and that international mechanisms under the UN climate convention were already in place to fight deforestation.

“Brazil will not accept any initiative that implies weakening sovereignty over its territory, whatever the pretext and whatever the guise,” he added.

Responding to the G7 offer, Bolsonaro’s chief of staff, Onyx Lorenzoni, told Brazilian news website Globo: “Thanks, but maybe those resources are more relevant to reforest Europe.”

Personal relations between French president Emmanuel Macron and Bolsonaro, already strained by the crisis in the Amazon, deteriorated even further after Brazil’s leader mocked Macron’s wife on Facebook.

Ireland threatens to block Mercosur trade deal unless Brazil protects Amazon

Facing increased isolation abroad for his stance on the unfolding environmental crisis, Bolsonaro also found himself under mounting pressure at home, with a poll on Monday showing that his government’s approval rating sank to 29.4% in August.

“We will straightaway offer Amazonian countries that signal to us their needs, financial support,” Macron said in the wealthy resort of Biarritz on France’s Atlantic coast.

Many of the fires sweeping through the Amazon are thought to have been started deliberately in Brazil, with environmentalists blaming speculators who burn vegetation to clear it in hopes of selling the land to farmers and ranchers.

Global anger and concern has been steadily rising as the blazes have raged because of the rainforest’s importance to the environment. The Amazon is often described as “the lungs of the world” due to its vast ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

Climate news straight to your inbox? Sign up here

Within minutes of the G7 move, however, Bolsonaro said Brazil was being treated like “a colony or no man’s land,” and denounced the creation of an international alliance to save the Amazon as an attack on his nation’s sovereignty.

However, Brazil’s environment minister Ricardo Salles struck a different note, calling the aid “welcome.”

Later on Monday, presidential spokesman said Bolsonaro might visit the Amazon region later this week, to check on the efforts to combat the fires.

Calling the Amazon fires a global emergency, Macron pushed the disaster to the top of the G7 agenda and said the member states were ready to provide concrete help.

“France will do so with military support in the coming hours,” he said, without giving further details.

Canada said it would send water bombers to Brazil to help contain the blaze and was also contributing C$15 million ($11.30 million) in aid.

“One of the things we have seen over the past years as Canada has faced increasingly extreme wildfire events is there is a global network of support and friends that lean on each other,” prime minister Justin Trudeau said at the end of the summit.

Record 72,000 forest fires detected in Brazil this year

More international celebrities voiced their concern over the fires on Monday, with actor Leonardo DiCaprio telling Reuters that the crisis is “incredibly tragic” and that governments must do more to fight climate change. DiCaprio also pledged $5 million for the rainforest.

Chilean president Sebastián Piñera was invited to join the wealthy-nation leaders in Biarritz, and said the G7 plan would be implemented in two stages.

“Countries urgently need fire fighters and specialised water bombers. This will be the first step that will be implemented immediately. The second phase is to protect these forests, protect the biodiversity they contain and reforest this region of the world,” he added.

The Amazon is home to an estimated one million indigenous people from up to 500 tribes as well some three million species of plants and animals, including jaguars, sloths, giant otters, river dolphins, howler monkeys, toucans, reptiles, frogs and insects.

China invites the US back to the table at Chile climate talks

Macron added that the G7, which comprises the US, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the UK and Canada, would draw up an initiative for the Amazon that will be launched at next month’s UN general assembly in New York.

On Monday, Brazil’s foreign ministry ordered its ambassadors in Europe and other G7 countries not to take vacations for the next two weeks in order to coordinate a diplomatic response to global concerns over the fires.

US president Donald Trump was absent from the talks on climate change and biodiversity at a G7 session on Monday, and Macron said he had been busy holding bilateral meetings. “He wasn’t in the room, but his team was,” Macron said. “You shouldn’t read anything into the American president’s absence… The US are with us on biodiversity and on the Amazon initiative.”

However, in his closing news conference at the summit, Trump made clear he was not about to embrace the environmentalist cause.

“We are now the No. 1 energy producer in the world,” he said in response to a question about climate change. “I’m not going to lose that wealth, I’m not going to lose it on dreams, on windmills, which frankly aren’t working too well,” he added.

The post G7 countries offer $20 million emergency aid to fight Amazon wildfires appeared first on Climate Home News.

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the EU agreed new language on the importance of carbon pricing and a “just transition” to clean energy, as well as reaffirming their commitment to the Paris Agreement.

The US asserted its position in a separate paragraph, prioritising economic growth and energy security. It would support countries in using “all available energy sources”, including to “access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently,” the statement said.

On the biggest source of friction at the summit, trade, the leaders arrived at a consensus position – only for president Donald Trump to retract US endorsement after leaving the meeting.

Trump refused to even attend a scheduled session on climate change, leaving the G6 to advance the agenda without him. It contrasts with last year’s summit in Italy, which resulted in a minimalist outcome as leaders held out hope of winning Trump round.

“On the climate, we have an ambitious position at 6, without the United States. This is not new,” French president Emmanuel Macron tweeted.

Sur le climat, nous avons une position ambitieuse à 6, sans les États-Unis.
Ce n’est pas une nouveauté. #G7Charlevoix

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 9, 2018

“It is true that we didn’t resolve all the problems facing the planet this weekend in Charlevoix, but we made significant progress,” said Canadian prime minister and host Justin Trudeau at the closing press conference.

German chancellor Angela Merkel released a photo to illustrate the dynamic of talks, which immediately went viral: she and the leaders of France, UK and Japan standing over a defiant Trump, seated with his arms crossed.

If you like what we do, support us

Become a CHN patron for as little as $5 per month to help us keep bringing you the most in-depth coverage of climate politics and underreported stories from around the world.

We have set up a Patreon account. It’s a simple, safe and easy way for you to become part of a community that will secure and guide our future.

Thank you!

“Trump’s petulant refusal to join G7 climate talks must finally banish any illusions of working with him,” said Nick Mabey, head of European environmental thinktank E3G. “The other G6 leaders must react by forging a partnership to drive forward climate action as the glue to the maintain the global rules-based system.”

The G6 promised a “just transition, including increasing efforts to mobilize climate finance from a wide variety of sources”. Just transition is climate jargon for helping communities dependent on carbon-intensive industries like coal mining find new jobs in a clean economy.

It addresses an obstacle to climate ambition in many of the member states: lobbying from trade unions and industry groups fearful of the economic impacts. For example, the German government has committed to phase out coal use but delegated the contentious timeline to a 31-member commission.

There was also a G6 commitment to work with all levels of government, business and civil society, including indigenous groups, on the transition to clean energy.

Trudeau has been criticised for backing – and indeed buying – an oil pipeline in the face of strong opposition from climate campaigners and indigenous Canadians.

“Canada showed leadership by stickhandling this climate outcome as the G7 host,” said Catherine Abreu, head of Climate Action Network Canada. “However, to be a true climate leader, prime minister Trudeau will need to change his approach to fossil fuel infrastructure at home, and take tangible actions that match his stated commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.”

Absent from the statement was any reference to an existing G7 pledge to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The Overseas Development Institute estimates they are channeling a collective $100 billion a year to coal, oil and gas interests.

“Pledges to address the climate crisis will continue to ring hollow as long as governments keep propping up the industry that drives it,” said Adam Scott, campaigner at Oil Change International. “If G7 leaders are serious about climate action, they need to counter Trump’s climate denial by taking much more ambitious action to fight climate change, including an end to destructive fossil fuel subsidies.”

Republish this article

The post G6 leaders advance climate agenda while Trump’s US defends fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

It is set to be a fraught meeting, as president Donald Trump threatens trade war with US allies and doubles down on his opposition to climate action.

He will meet six other leaders unwilling to compromise on their commitment to fight climate change. Advance negotiators have failed to find common ground for the usual joint statement.

Amid the tension, climate advocates reminded the group of rich nations of their fast-approaching 2020 deadline to deliver $100 billion a year in climate aid.

“Many developing countries desperately need this support in order to make their contribution to climate action. I urge G7 members to unlock the promised and necessary funding to make this contribution possible,” wrote UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa in the summit brochure.

If you like what we do, support us

Become a CHN patron for as little as $5 per month to help us keep bringing you the most in-depth coverage of climate politics and underreported stories from around the world.

We have set up a Patreon account. It’s a simple, safe and easy way for you to become part of a community that will secure and guide our future.

Thank you!

Gebru Jember Endalew, Ethiopian diplomat and chair of the least developed countries bloc at UN climate talks, agreed: “Finance is key to enabling an effective global response to climate change so that all countries have the tools to limit greenhouse gas emissions and protect their citizens from its impacts.”

Marshall Islands president Hilda Heine said she would travel to Charlevoix to remind her fellow leaders “now is the time to step up your climate action. The world’s most vulnerable countries expect the G7 to lead by example”.

Trump has axed US contributions to the Green Climate Fund and other support mechanisms. But the rich world collectively pledged to the $100bn milestone. Questions about who will fill the gap have strained relations between would-be progressive donor countries and those depending on that money.

It comes in a year governments are negotiating the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement and mulling how to ramp up ambition. As well as scaling up finance, Endalew said, the G7 must make that support more transparent, reliable and predictable.

“It is vital that geopolitics among the G7 do not impede progress on climate finance,” said Shaughn MacArthur of aid agency Care Canada.

The Canadian hosts maintained climate change was a key theme of the summit and they were seeking consensus. In response to questions from Climate Home News, a spokesperson for the presidency said “we anticipate productive discussions” on clean energy innovation – defined broadly enough to include “the sustainable extraction and use of fossil fuels”. Climate finance is not an explicit priority and no specific outcomes have been floated.

If all seven members cannot agree, the chair is likely to issue a summary of the discussion. That happened at last week’s G7 finance ministerial, where the G6 singled out the US for extraordinary criticism over Trump’s punitive import tariffs, expressing “unanimous concern and disappointment”.

The American President may not mind being isolated, but neither do we mind signing a 6 country agreement if need be. Because these 6 countries represent values, they represent an economic market which has the weight of history behind it and which is now a true international force https://t.co/UA86fcjozs

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 7, 2018

French president Emmanuel Macron tweeted on Thursday he was willing to sign a six-country agreement “if need be”. Meanwhile a US official told Politico they saw no chance of common ground.

Endalew urged the US to honour its climate commitments “for the health and prosperity of present and future generations”. Citing devastation in Puerto Rico, the US territory where Hurricane Maria is estimated to have killed nearly 5,000 people, he added: “The United States cannot afford to ignore climate change.”

Republish this article

The post Poor world calls on G7 to stick to climate agenda, despite Trump appeared first on Climate Home News.

Sonny Perdue met with ministers of agriculture from the G7 countries and the EU over the weekend. Their final communique, signed by all countries, said climate change was one of a number of threats to “our capacity to feed a growing population and need[ed] to be taken into serious consideration”.

The ministers noted droughts, floods, earthquakes, plant and animal diseases, pest infestation, market shocks and conflicts were impacting farmers and food production. “Climate change is projected to amplify many of these issues,” they said.

On Sunday, Perdue told the Wall Street Journal his personal views on climate change. He appeared to accept the climate was changing. When asked if he believed human activity was contributing, he said: “I don’t know that, nor that I think that it has been proven to be that. There are scientists on both sides of that.” A 2013 study of 4,000 climate research papers found that 97% agreed humans were responsible for climate change.

Climate Weekly: Sign up for your essential climate news update

At previous G7 and G20 meetings this year, the US refused to sign communiques that highlighted the need to implement the Paris Agreement. This led to a ‘G6’ statement on climate change among energy ministers and leaders.

At the weekend meeting in Bergamo, Italy, agriculture ministers sidestepped the problematic issue of the Paris accord, which Trump has called a bad deal for the US and committed to leaving, focusing instead on the impact of warming on agriculture.

The only mention of the agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, was a statement of fact: “The preamble of the Paris Agreement recognises the priority of safeguarding food security, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change.”

With this, ministers avoided a fight with the US over reaffirming their commitment to the deal.

Since 2015, G20 and G7 leaders and ministerial statements have included reaffirmations of the Paris accord. Climate Home News understands that after Trump announced he intended to withdraw from the Paris deal, the Italian G7 presidency had decided it was not worth producing a statement with which the US would obviously not agree.

Climate Home News asked the G7 presidency whether lines affirming the accord had been considered by ministers in Bergamo, but there was no response by the time of publication.

At the corresponding meeting in Niigata, Japan last year, the ministers’ statement said: “We need to take action on these issues, including the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change adopted in 2015.”

Report: Trump stance on Paris climate deal ‘sad’, says pope

It added: “We are also committed to supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda as well as the Paris Agreement.” No lines of this type appeared in this weekend’s statement.

However, the inclusion of language about climate risks indicates the US remains willing to engage on climate issues, so long as discussions do not refer to the Paris deal or human drivers of global warming. The agriculture ministers also commissioned a study into the effect of extreme weather on agriculture and food production.

US secretary Perdue met with the pope while in Italy, speaking at an event with him to mark World Food Day.

“All of us, including the US, must remain diligent in our pursuit of global food security,” said Perdue in a speech to the UN food agency on Monday.

The pope however, made it clear he was unhappy with the US stance on the Paris deal. In his remarks, for which Perdue was in the audience, he said “sadly, some have abandoned” the accord.

The post US signs G7 statement recognising climate threat to food security appeared first on Climate Home News.

Trump has threatened to withdraw from the agreement, but is still making up his mind. Two weeks ago, the White House said he was deferring his decision until after meeting with G7 leaders.

In recent years, the G7 has produced strong proclamations on climate change and decarbonisation, including a 2015 pledge to end all fossil fuel use by the end of the century.

But with the threat of a US withdrawal from the Paris agreement hanging over discussions in Taormina, leaders of the other major advanced economies may hesitate to insist on the strong affirmations of climate action the body has issued in the past.

“It’s quite clear that governments are not going to go to war with Trump,” said Tom Burke, chairman of E3G. “You really wouldn’t want to run the risk of forcing him out of Paris… You wouldn’t want to put him in a situation where he could go back [to the US] saying you’re all ganging up on me, I’m leaving.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate news update

Whether by design or not, Trump’s indecision is likely to significantly water down a section of the leaders’ communiqué devoted to climate and energy policy.

Climate Home was told by sources familiar with the negotiations that a text on climate change had barely been discussed by sherpas – the lead negotiators who hammer out language in advance.

This year, climate change was so politically fraught that the text would be discussed by the leaders on Friday, one source said. Sherpas will then work on the text overnight with the leaders to approve it on Saturday.

“I think we are now not expecting to read too much into the language of the final communiqué,” said Burke.

The communiqué agreed by all leaders last year began its climate change section with a strongly worded affirmation of the “historic achievement in Paris”. But last month, at the G7 energy ministers’ meeting, the US declined to associate itself with such a statement, citing an internal policy review.

A recent meeting of Arctic ministers saw the US and other nations take “note” of the Paris agreement. That would be insufficient, said David Waskow, director of the World Resources Institute’s climate programme.

“This would leave doubt and fail to give the clear political signal that support for global climate action remains strong even when faced with a reluctant Trump administration. Climate change is not something to take note of, it’s something to act on,” he said.

Other options are available to the leaders of nations who want to publicly back the Paris agreement, but allow Trump to prevaricate.

Report: G7 fails to agree Paris climate statement as US turns spoiler

At the energy ministerial, the Italian chair issued a closing summary which made clear that the US had been unable to clarify its position, but that other ministers had “reaffirmed their commitment”.

“The format is less important than the signal itself,” Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Climate Home. “What’s important is that there is a strong statement from the other G7 countries on climate. Everyone knows that there is a sharp split between Trump and the other countries and leaders.”

However there remains the possibility that leaders could use the meeting, and their diplomatic heft, to try and convince Trump to commit to the accord at the meeting.

France’s president Emmanuel Macron met with Trump in Paris on Thursday. The French have a national stake in the legacy of the accord struck in that city. Macron has already spoken with Trump once about the accord on the phone and was expected to raise it again when they met face-to-face.

“What we have seen from Trump is he takes personally the one-on-one talks he has with other world leaders,” Waskow told Fox News. “That kind of persuasion can have some real effect if it is delivered in a very personal way.”

Report: Pope Francis gives Trump a climate change message

Trump attends the meeting accompanied by influential advocates for staying within the agreement: his daughter and son-in-law Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who are both presidential advisors, and secretary-of-state Rex Tillerson.

The accord’s most ardent critics – US Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt and special presidential advisor Steve Bannon – are back in the US.

Twenty-two Republican senators sided with Pruitt and Bannon on Thursday, citing fears that staying in the agreement while pursuing coal-friendly policies at home would open up the administration to “significant litigation risk”.

Meyer said the key outcome for other leaders would be to not “strengthen the hand” of Pruitt and Bannon, while making clear that the rest of the forum remain aligned on climate change.

The post G7 leaders walk fine line between Trump and Paris deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

But the US did back an Obama-era pledge to end “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” by 2025.

The chair of the Rome meeting, Italy’s economic progress minister Carlo Calenda, said energy ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and EU climate commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete had “exchanged views” on the 2015 Paris agreement.

While all other ministers “reaffirmed their commitment towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement”, said Calenda in his closing summary, US secretary of energy Rick Perry had “informed fellow ministers and commissioner that the United States is in the process of reviewing many of its policies and reserves its position on this issue, which will be communicated at a future date”.

At the same meeting last year, all energy ministers, including former US secretary of energy Ernest Moniz made a strong statement in support of the Paris agreement.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate news update

US president Donald Trump has expressed a desire to withdraw from the Paris agreement and early exchanges on climate between Trump administration officials and other leaders are being watched carefully.

As the UN climate process moves beyond the striking of the accord and on to its implementation, the attitude of the US could influence the ambitions of other large emitters.

Perry released a post-meeting statement that made no mention of climate change but name-checked coal and natural gas as fuels that must be supported into the future.

“I discussed with my fellow Ministers that the Trump Administration believes that economic growth and the environment can successfully go hand-in-hand,” said Perry. “Renewables will continue to have an important role but traditional sources are still needed for energy and economic security into the foreseeable future.”

Immediately after the meeting, which ended on Monday, Cañete was defiant.

“While secretary Perry informed us that the US is currently reviewing its energy and climate policies, I was particularly pleased to see that all others joined the EU in reaffirming our solid commitment and determination to implement the Paris Agreement and continue the clean energy transition. We see climate action and the clean energy transition for what it is: a driver of jobs and economic growth, a moral imperative and a promise for a better future,” he said.

“Europe will continue to work with all its partners to reap all the benefits of the clean energy transition in line with the objectives of the historic Paris Agreement.”

#G7energy: while some review their climate and clean energy policies, most of us move forward and implement them in line w/ #ParisAgreement pic.twitter.com/oEHqflx0xf

— Miguel Arias Cañete (@MAC_europa) April 10, 2017

The ministers were able to find concord on the benefits of “new market based clean energy technologies” and energy efficiency.

UK climate and industry minister Nick Hurd tweeted that he had been pleased to meet Perry and there was “lots of common ground on energy security and innovation”.

The ministers also agreed on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. Calenda said all heads of delegation – including Perry – had “reiterated the commitment” made in 2016.

The definition of a subsidy is rubbery, leading to a huge discrepancy in the amounts reported by countries and institutions. The OECD estimates subsidies within its member states amount to $160-200bn each year.

The US and China last year published a peer-review of each other’s subsidies. The US reported $8.2bn worth of annual subsidies.

Trump has pledged to revive the US coal industry, which has been crippled by competition from cheap natural gas and renewable energy as well as regulations on air pollution. Some miners have called on the president to support the flagging industry through increased subsidies.

Apart from an executive order that began rolling back Barack Obama’s controls on energy sector emissions, the Clean Power Plan, Trump has reopened a moratorium on coal plants of federal land. Cheap federal leasing of public land to coal miners has been described as a subsidy programme worth as much as $28.9bn over the past 30 years.

The US department of state referred questions about fossil fuel subsidies to the treasury, which did not answer email requests to comment.

Perry’s affirmation on subsidies contrasts with his unwillingness to engage in discussions around the Paris agreement. But in his statement after the meeting he expressed support for “high efficiency, low-emission coal and natural gas with adequate financing from multi-lateral development banks” – seemingly advocating continuing subsidies in the short term.

Calenda closing statement made no mention of a G7 pledge, made in 2015, to phase out all fossil fuel use by the end of this century.

Perry, the former Texan governor who now leads the US energy department (DoE), has expressed doubt about the degree of certainty that exists in the scientific community about climate change. This echoes statements made by his boss and many of his cabinet colleagues.

During his confirmation hearing, Perry pledged to protect the jobs of scientists, including climate scientists, within his department. But a draft budget released last month foreshadowed $900m worth of cuts to DoE scientific spending.

The group of seven (known as the G7) are the seven largest advanced economies on earth and represent roughly a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

The post G7 fails to agree Paris climate statement as US turns spoiler appeared first on Climate Home News.

That’s the warning in a new report from the Green Alliance, a London-based NGO.

Annual auctions to make sure there is enough power on the system in four years’ time are skewed towards gas generators, the think-tank says. Cheaper, greener demand management technology is being overlooked.

The next round, in December, could see the construction of up to three large-scale gas plants, Green Alliance projects. Outlay is set to rise from £833 million (US$1.0bn) in 2015 to £2.6bn ($3.3bn).

That means guaranteeing further millions of state funding through the next decade to power plants that would have to close or use carbon capture technology to meet 2030 carbon goals.

Report: Paris climate deal close to entry into force after EU vote

Amy Mount, head of the Greener UK unit at Green Alliance said the policy conflicts with the aspirations of business and energy secretary Greg Clarke to upgrade and clean the UK’s energy network.

“If the capacity market ends up predominantly giving payments to fossil fuel assets and continues to neglect flexible energy technologies, which our analysis suggests is likely at least in the upcoming auction this December, this will undermine the modernisation of the energy system,” she said.

“It’s hard to see how that escapes counting as fossil fuel subsidy.”

A spokesperson from the UK energy department said the capacity market was an “insurance policy” and did not favour gas over other sources of energy.

“A wide range of energy providers and technologies are able to participate as well as giving users the opportunity to turn down their electricity consumption at peak times,” they said.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Under the G7 pledge the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and UK said they were “committed to the elimination” of fossil fuel subsidies.

According to the IMF, US$5.3 trillion is spent by governments around the world supporting oil, gas and coal use, although the Paris-based OECD more conservatively estimates the sum at $160-200 billion.

Under the IMF methodology, which includes things like the public health costs of air pollution, the UK supplies £26 billion ($33bn) to the fossil fuel sector on an annual basis.

Of that coal received £18 billion, a figure that is likely to fall as the UK continues its phase-out of coal power plants by the mid-2020s.

Analysis from the Carbon Brief website this week shows UK coal use plummeted though 2016, with solar installations generating more electricity between April and September.

The UK energy department was contacted for a response before this story was published.

The post Is the UK about to break G7 fossil fuel subsidy pledge? 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.

For the first time a completely fossil-fuel free economy was talked about by world leaders.

The transition from high to zero carbon energy sources moved from the civil society wish-list onto the headlines of a communiqué at a major summit.

It was too much to hope that Japan would show the same level of drive this year, and so it proved. Their homework list on climate is solid but unspectacular, and is unlikely to make headline news.

Yet it is evidence of how far the whole agenda has come, that even Japan – isolated in its determination to sell coal technology to its neighbours and undermining its place in the global clean energy economy – felt obliged to agree significant steps forward in implementing the Paris agreement.

Report: G7 sets 2025 deadline to scrap fossil fuel subsidies

As well as pushing on with ratification and entry into force of the deal itself, G7 leaders also agreed a new 2025 deadline to a pledge to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

It’s an idea that has been hanging around in the margins of the G20 for some time, but without the necessary sense of urgency.  There was agreement that the 7 would also get to work on their own mid-century climate plans.

The US, Germany and Canada have already promised to have their plans done by the end of this year, so the race is on.

They offer a chance for countries to re-calibrate their efforts and make them compatible with the Paris goals – including limiting temperature rises to 1.5C, and achieving net zero emissions.

But perhaps even more importantly, the plans are a way to have a national conversation about the transition to a zero carbon economy – and to embed new policies and programmes that can help leap-frog dirty technologies, make the most of technical innovation, and identify win-wins.

Here in the UK, we are about to embark on producing our own ‘carbon plan’.  Here’s a quick check-list of ideas for the Government about when and how they might do that, to consider as they return home from Japan:

1)      Our carbon plan should be used to influence the European 2050 plan, that’s also due for revision soon.  We should make sure both are in line with the objectives set by Paris, and also that they are ready in time to contribute to the next key international moment – a big push in 2018 to increase ambition.  If Europe turns up to this conversation with nothing, its climate credibility will not survive.

2)      The UK’s coal-phase out commitment will be a key part of its plan.  This gives us a unique opportunity to work with others who are also moving away from coal – including most of the G7 (Japan being the dishonourable exception) – helping to shape their plans as part of a ‘coal phase out club’.

3)      The carbon plan is also great chance to boost the UK’s electric vehicle industry and improve air quality in our cities.  Once we know where we are going, we can push Europe to adopt the kinds of vehicle emission standards that will give our clean cars a head-start.  This is an area where we can lead the world.

4)      Too many of us suffer from cold homes, leaky buildings and high bills.  We can use the carbon plan to recruit city leaders and local councils to tackle this perennial problem.  Investing in our built infrastructure will make the country healthier and wealthier.

5)      Finally, if we want to reach net zero emissions, we will have to start thinking hard about how we look after our land and our ecosystems.  Before even considering some of the more speculative ‘negative emission technologies’ we must make full use of the best carbon capturing machines on earth – plants and soils.  Restoring and protecting forests and wetlands and rebuilding the fertility of our soils has to be a core part of the plan.

If we want to get started on this stuff (and we should!), we should also make this a truly collaborative effort – involving business, cities, civil society, farmers, faith groups and unions in a national conservation.

The world is going zero-carbon.  Now’s the time to decide how we want this exciting journey to work for us.

Ruth Davis is a senior associate at the London-based E3G think tank

The post Japan isolated as G7 eyes tougher climate change targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a statement Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and UK said the high levels of emissions linked to energy production and use meant sector had a “crucial role”to play in addressing climate change.

“We remain committed to the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and encourage all countries to do so by 2025,” they said.

An estimated US$5.3 trillion a year is spent by governments worldwide supporting the fossil fuel sector, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. A separate study by the OECD in 2015 came in at $160-200 billion a year.

That runs against the spirit of the UN’s new Paris Agreement on climate change, say environmental groups, which specifically calls for funds to be redirected towards greener forms of energy.

G7: Key announcements
-Calls for end to fossil fuel subsidies by 2025
-Supports HFC phase-down amendment in 2016
-Supports Paris Agreement entry into force by 2017
-Commits to carbon neutral growth in aviation from 2020
-Underlines goal to meet $100bn of climate finance by 2020

Shelagh Whitley, a research fellow at the London-based Overseas Development Institute, called the decision “historic” for agreeing an expiry date, noting the group had for the first time referred to subsidies for production as well as consumption.

“We finally have an endgame for these perverse incentives, and although we could easily get there twice as fast, a yardstick for holding governments to account,” she said.

Alex Doukas, a US campaigner with Oil Change International, said 2020 would be a more realistic date to slash support for fossil fuels to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.

Still, the statement did not stipulate what constitutes a subsidy. The UK government denies it offers its domestic fossil fuel sector any subsidies, while the ODI claims the real figure is £9.5 billion ($14bn) a year.

“The first assessment of all countries’ climate commitments takes place in 2018, and we challenge the G7 to produce plans for a transition to 100% renewable energy by then” – Jennifer Morgan, Greenpeace International

The host nation came under criticism for pressing ahead with plans to build 49 domestic coal plants. On the same day leaders signed the G7 pledge, the environment ministry endorsed two power stations.

Kimiko Hirata, international director of the Kiko Network, said: “This is a shameful decision which leaves Japan more and more isolated among G7 countries and moves us backward toward a bygone fossil fuel era.”

Overseas, G7 countries have spent $42 billion on the fossil fuel sector since 2007, according to research published last week by environmental groups.

Japan’s former climate ambassador Mutsuyoshi Nishimura seemed unsure his government could meet the G7 pledge.

Citing reports Tokyo officials wiped coal off this year’s G7 agenda, Nishimura said the country was “addicted” to the world’s most carbon intensive fuel.

“It is an important export item. Japan sells coal technology by claiming that energy-poor developing countries want it,” he said.

The post G7 leaders set 2025 deadline to scrap fossil fuel subsidies appeared first on Climate Home News.

Despite a coal capacity double that of other G7 members at 288 gigawatts, the US topped the scorecard due to its domestic and international efforts to limit coal use.

More the 100GW of coal-fired capacity is now slated for closure stateside, according to the report, while Washington’s climate diplomacy has turned the screw on overseas financing of the world’s most carbon-intensive fossil fuel.

France and the UK tied in second, reflecting what the report terms “positive government interventions” since the scorecard’s last publication in October 2015.

The study comes days before G7 leaders are due to meet in Toyama, Japan from 26-27 May, amid a growing campaign from green groups against the Abe administration’s energy plans.

(Pic: E3G)

E3G delivered a rebuke to Tokyo’s goal for more than 25GW of new coal capacity, which has not changed in the light of the UN’s newly agreed pact to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

“Continued construction of unabated coal fired power plants are not compatible with the climate commitments it made in the Paris Agreement,” wrote the report’s author Chris Littlecott.

The government was still actively investing in overseas coal plants, he said, and was displaying a reluctance to invest in nascent carbon capture technology to suck up fossil fuel emissions.

Lacking significant domestic energy reserves, Japan’s coal use has risen markedly since the 2011 Fukushima disaster and decision to shift away from nuclear power.

According to data from the US Energy Information Administration it’s the world’s top liquefied natural gas, second largest coal and third biggest oil importer.

Green groups’ G7 wishlist
-Commit to and deliver 2050 climate and development plans
-Outline strategy for boosting climate finance by 2020
-Offer more capacity-building support to developing countries
-Underline common goal to squeeze out coal power

Abroad, green groups say Japan’s continued funding for coal plants in Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines demonstrates the government is not taking its climate commitments seriously.

In a letter published last week, 80 civil society organizations asked prime minister Abe to support a G7 commitment to end all fossil fuel financing by 2017.

“It is a time to make G7’s public finance flows consistent with the goal of 1.5-2 degree Celsius agreed in Paris,” said Yuki Tanabe, coordinator at Japan Center for Sustainable Environment and Society.

Separately, 82 organisations representing 300,000 medical professionals in 30 countries signed a Global Health Statement calling for the G7 to lead a “transition away from coal”.

A significant number of the 3.7 million deaths each year from air pollution can be linked to coal burning, the statement said.

“Coal not only produces carbon, micro-pollutants and many other substances toxic to humans, but it is grossly inefficient when compared to renewable energy sources,” said Dr James Orbinski, Professor and Research Chair in Global Health at the BSIA School of International Affairs, Laurier University Canada.

The post G7 host Japan mocks UN climate deal with coal binge, say greens appeared first on Climate Home News.

G7 leaders in the Bavarian alps, June 2015. The bloc is made up of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the EU (Flickr: Crown copyright/ Arron Hoare)

By Alex Pashley

“Today, we celebrate. Tomorrow, we have to act. This is what the world expects of us.”

So Miguel Arias Canete, the EU climate chief, cautioned amid euphoric scenes in Paris last month as countries pulled off a global warming accord. The 195 nations agreed to hold warming to ‘well below 2C’ and aim for 1.5C.

But to achieve that, the world must rapidly scale down its fossil fuel burning, scientists say. Measures to deepen carbon cuts and deploy clean energy are crucial.

So one month on, what’s new? We assessed the Group of Seven, with 10% of the world population, a third of its economic output (adjusted for purchasing power) and 22% of its emissions.

Canada

PM Justin Trudeau promised to meet with the country’s provinces to harmonise carbon pricing policies within 90 days of the UN summit. Don’t expect a lot before that, says Dale Marshall at Environmental Defence in Ottawa. The incoming government has backed green infrastructure and more rigorous environmental assessments of energy projects like pipelines. A review of the Harper government’s climate pledge is due (the 30% cut on 2005 levels by 2030 will be a “floor”, say ministers) but it might take months. Bigger announcements should drop from September and the national budget in early 2017. The polluting tar sands sector is reeling from tumbling global oil prices, putting pressure on government to offer relief.

France

The host of December’s landmark UN summit must be an “example” as countries carry out carbon-cutting promises, President Francois Hollande said in his New Year address. Green growth will be one plank to reverse a slumped economy and record unemployment with elections from April 2017. Hollande announced large-scale projects to renovate existing buildings and develop renewable energy. France is unlikely to up its 32% renewable goal for 2030 or its fossil fuel consumption target of a 30% cut by the same year on 2012 levels. The government hasn’t made clear how it will carry out the plans, but will put forward concrete measures later this year, says Carole Mathieu, a researcher at Paris think tank IFRI.

Germany

How to nix Germany’s persistent coal usage, filling the gap left by a nuclear phase-out, is the government’s top climate concern. Renewables generated a record 32% of electricity last year, but emissions aren’t budging as dirty lignite and hard coal is burned in big quantities. Environment minister Barbara Hendricks has called for an end to coal burning within 25 years to meet the 2050 target to cut emissions 85-90%. A draft plan is due out in summer, but the industry is fiercely defending its patch. A think tank close to government has outlined a roadmap to that goal, says Bernard Poetter, journalist at Berlin daily Die Tageszeitung. It must shut down around 3-4 coal plants a year (3GW of maximum annual capacity), from 2018-2040 for a smooth transition.

Italy

Requests for comment from the country’s sustainable development ministry and domestic experts weren’t returned in one of the G7’s lesser influential members. Dependent on imports for 84% of its fossil fuel usage, renewables’ share of the energy mix has tripled since 2005 to just below its EU 2020 target of 17%.

Japan

Japan remains conflicted about nuclear power’s place in its energy mix, after the Fukushima disaster closed down its reactors and coal and natural gas surged to plug the gap. The Asian country pledged to cut emissions 26% from 2013 levels by 2030 to a Paris deal. Nuclear will recover to produce 20-22% of electricity under plans, despite public opposition. That’s crowding out the renewables industry, says ex-UN negotiator Mutsuyoshi Nishimura. The environment ministry and economy, trade and industry ministry have agreed to a round of panel meetings drawing on outside experts to gain consensus on the climate plan.

UK

Britain’s climate secretary Amber Rudd is promising to produce a new climate strategy at the end of 2016. Cutting emissions from transport, the number two source, and insulating buildings to save on heating, are priorities. The country is aiming for a coal power phase-out by 2025, shifting more to gas-fired generators. It has faced fierce criticism for slashing subsidies for wind and solar and cancelling a £1 billion (US$1.4bn) carbon capture fund.

The US

After the sweeping Clean Power Plan landed last year, targeting power sector emissions, 2016 will focus on fossil fuel supply. Barack Obama in his last State of the Union address as president this week said he would “push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources”. That was interpreted as describing a rule on leasing those fuels on federal land. Rules on methane flaring from the shale industry are expected too. The administration is considering drilling off the Atlantic coast, setting up a battle with communities. As the presidential race hots up, expect polarised views on climate change to be aired.

The post What new climate measures are G7 members taking after Paris deal? appeared first on Climate Home News.

G7 leaders meet in Elmau Schloss castle in Germany’s alps in June. Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, the US, and the UK comprise the bloc (Pic: Crown copyright/Arron Hoare)

By Alex Pashley

The world’s top industrialised countries are shunning new coal-fired power plants and retiring old timers as low returns and regulations come to bear.

The Group of Seven (G7) saw a clear swing away from its reliance on the high-polluting fuel between 2009 and 2014, according to a report by UK-based think tank E3G on Wednesday.

Though that’s with one exception: Japan.

As others slim their coal fleets, the Asian member is planning 48 new plants and approving export credits to fund other carbon-intensive ventures in the developing world.

“Japan finds itself isolated in clinging to coal, while its G7 peers are all moving towards a phase out,” Chris Littlecott, E3G programme leader, said in a statement.

“There is a clear structural shift away from coal underway across the G7, with the dominant trend being the cancellation of proposed projects and the retirement of existing coal power plants.”

The think tank ranked the country in bottom place as it launched the report at a preparatory UN meeting to a decisive climate summit in Paris in December.

Japan has upped its coal use to generate power after the Fukushima nuclear disaster shut down the nation’s reactors. But environment minister Yoshio Mochizuki is pushing back on concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, Reuters reported in August.

“[Japan] should stop arguing that so-called ‘clean coal’ is the solution,” said Kimiko Hirata, international director of NGO coalition, Kiko Network. “Recognizing global momentum, Japan should shift away from its current path, not only for the sake of a climate-safe world, but also to avoid international isolation and to foster a green economy in Japan.”

Report: Who’d buy a coal mine? Two very different bids

Internationally, coal is in the crosshairs as national climate commitments and air pollution fears are driving a switch to cleaner fuels, while collapsing coal prices are driving many producers to the wall

In the G7, developers have scrapped half of proposed projects since 2010 worth 133 gigawatts in new capacity over fears for profits.

Countries have marked out 124GW for retirement by 2020 moreover, which the report expects to grow.

The G7 made a watershed commitment to transform the world’s energy system towards 100% clean energy by the end of the century, spelling the end for the industry, in theory.

Canada, the US and UK now refuse to build coal plants without costly and untested technology to capture carbon emissions.

While sagging prices has made new mining ventures unattractive for producers in France, Italy and Germany, the report said.

Though Germany, which E3G ranked sixth out of seven in the scorecard, still backs coal plants abroad and had supported lignite plants after abandoning nuclear energy.

Citigroup: Coal mining sector running out of time
Report: Climate vulnerable Philippines plans huge bet on coal

Those plants had racked up financial losses and faced an uncertain future after 2020, for which utilities and investors required a clear signal, said Sabrina Schulz.

The US, with a coal fleet twice the size of other G7 members combined, was praised for retiring coal plants and withdrawing support for new ones overseas without carbon-capture technology.

The Obama administration’s clean power plan places stringent curb on coal station emissions, and backs clean energy investments.

Though the G7 represented just 22.4% of global emissions in 2012, according to EU data.

Developing countries fixed on poverty reduction are ramping up coal power as a cheap source of electricity.

2,177 were in the planning stages according to a March report by Coal Swarm. With average lifespans of 40 years, that locks in a whole lot more carbon-intensive development that cooks the planet.

The post Japan bucks trend as G7 quits coal appeared first on Climate Home News.

A refugee camp in Aleppo, Syria (Flickr/IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation)

By Megan Darby

No-one could have predicted in 2008 that seven years later Islamic State militants would be terrorising eastern Syria and destroying ancient shrines.

Nor could they have foreseen how many Syrians would drown in the Mediterranean as they made a desperate bid for Europe.

But as the country entered its third year of drought – a symptom of climate change – the warning signs for conflict were mounting up.

Cases like this are why “climate fragility” should be made a foreign policy priority, according to an in-depth report commissioned by the G7.

UK foreign minister Baroness Anelay picks on Syria as an example of the importance of global warming to her brief.

Speaking at the report’s London launch, she says: “Climate change is not only a threat to the environment but also to our global security, to poverty eradication and economic prosperity.

“That therefore makes it a top priority not only for environment ministers but foreign ministers too.”

Report: Climate change a likely factor in Syria civil war

Drawing on scientific research, consultations in 10 countries and surveys of policymakers, the report aims to link climate change with humanitarian aid and peacebuilding.

Where the climate community talks about “adaptation” to the effects of a warming world, the buzzwords here are “fragility” and its opposite, “resilience”.

“The G7 has the capacity to be a leading force in setting the global resilience agenda,” says lead author Dan Smith.

At the moment, “we find ourselves in a situation of dealing with successive crises rather than trying to manage the problem”.

It would be wrong to say climate change caused the migration across the Mediterranean, says Smith, who heads up peace charity International Alert. But “you can find a climate thread” in the stories of people leaving their homes.

Future threats

Lukas Ruttinger, another lead author and researcher at Adelphi, highlights regions where climate pressures threatened to spark violence.

Peru, for example, has “very high conflict potential”, with competition for resources heightening tensions between indigenous people, small farmers and big businesses.

Receding glaciers could shrink water supplies just as mining, logging and agribusiness are scaling up demand.

Around India’s Cauvery River, the increased risk of failed monsoon rains could bring to a head water disputes dating back to the 19^th century.

Waste, inequality and authoritarianism make such problems worse, the report warns. Cooperation, engagement and planning can help.

“The vicious cycle of climate change and fragility… will not be broken by piecemeal reactions to individual crises,” it says.

“Instead, we need to build integrated, responsive systems that are resilient to a broad range of shocks and stresses. It is time for a new approach and new leadership from the highest level.”

The post G7: Make ‘climate fragility’ a foreign policy priority appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Flickr/ Wendell)

By Mutsuyoshi Nishimura

Today, there is a global search for the right pricing of carbon and attempts are underway to link various trading systems.

But in my view, the right pricing of carbon will come only in a globally integrated carbon market, where the global carbon budget that science says would achieve 2C is made to meet global fossil fuels combustion requirements.

Such a global carbon market would give rise to a universal price of carbon reflecting the cost of achieving the 2C target. We need a market-based price, not one concocted by anybody.

As it involves a global market, the plan is presumably the least expensive way to wean the world off carbon. An integrated carbon market would not diminish prosperity.

Quite the contrary, it would maximize global outputs that would be produced by consuming the new resources called the “carbon budget for 2C”.

Fundamentals

How does the integrated global carbon market work? First, the carbon budget for 2C should be a collective property of humankind, making all governments the owner of that budget.

What we’ll call the “assembly of governments” sells the budget to the upstream providers of fossil fuels (importers and extractors of the fuels) in all countries so that they pass the carbon price on to the downstream economy.

Since the assembly will not issue any more credits than the 2C budget allows for, dangerous levels of warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions would be avoided.

As a consequence the assembly would get a new major source of climate financing that would be distributed globally. This could help drop the costs of renewable energies for quicker and cheaper global decarbonisation.

The new Apollo initiative proposed recently by Sir David King, the UK’s climate envoy, would need innovative funding such as this.

Different framing

More importantly the game change is incumbent as the emerging “dash to renewable energies” worldwide would diminish the legitimacy and relevancy of the current game of “dashing to carbon space”.

Burning fossil fuels is not the only way to ensure local communities get energy, productive systems thrive and poorer countries grow in sustainability.

Providing developing countries with more renewable energy and restricting carbon space is the quickest solution for them to get out of energy poverty and poverty writ large.

It makes better sense for all countries to aim at long-term net-zero targets in a time span science indicates and to adopt renewable energies in as massively and quickly as possible, rather than keep fighting each other for more carbon spaces or for more ambitious cuts.

Global commons

As to the carbon budget for 2C, it makes better sense for all countries to throw them into an integrated global market.

Then let the market give rise to market-based carbon price and price signal for the most cost-effective climate investments and produce new major sources for climate financing which would drive the acquisition costs of renewable energies even further down.

To the extent that the dash to renewable energies intensifies and the weight and need of sovereign prerogatives decline in dealing with how much carbon space a nation should get for its growth, jobs and so on, the policy community should seriously consider a new twin solution: (i) the long-term net-zero target for all countries (ii) the globally integrated carbon market for the carbon budget for 2C.

Mutsuyoshi Nishimura was Japan’s Ambassador in-charge of Global Environment and chief climate negotiator from 2005-2008, and Special Advisor to the Cabinet in charge of climate change from 2008-2010. 

The post A global carbon market could be a silver bullet for climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

The eye of Typhoon Neoguri which mainly struck Japan in July 2014 (Flickr/ NASA)

By Alex Pashley

For years, a compensation fund for developing countries ravaged by climate impacts like cyclones and droughts has been a bone of contention between them and rich nations.

Then on Monday, the Group of Seven appeared to pledge that in all but name.

The leading industrialised nations declared up to 400 million more people in vulnerable developing countries would have “direct or indirect insurance coverage against the negative impact of climate change related hazards by 2020”.

And members would “support the development of early warning mechanisms”, as they built on existing risk insurance set-ups in the Caribbean and Africa to tackle natural disasters.

Report: G7 buoys climate talks with support for zero carbon goal

That means a Filipino family could claim payouts in the aftermath of a typhoon like Haiyan in 2013 for example – funded by countries in part liable for causing the bulk of carbon emissions that aggravated climate change.

“Rich countries have understood that there is a problem that needs to be tackled,” said Ernst Rauch, head of the corporate climate centre at German insurer, Munich Re. “The final outcome of the summit exceeded our expectations.”

About 50 million people in the developing world are each insured, directly through private policies, or indirectly, through governments who disburse funds when disasters strike, he said.

That G7 commitment was an “implicit acknowledgement of loss and damage”, said Harjeet Singh, climate change lead at Action Aid, referring to the climate compensation fund being debated in UN talks.

But outside of the G7, countries, which include the US, Canada and Japan experienced “blackouts” as they refused to anchor the mechanism in a global climate pact expected to be signed later this year in Paris.

Filipino children stand among the wreckage in Cebu after Typhoon Haiyan in November 2013 (Flickr/ European Commission DG Echo)

“They’re trying to portray insurance as a magic bullet. But you need to clarify who’s going to pay for it, especially when you talk about the poor,” said Singh, speaking from the latest round of UN climate talks taking place in Bonn this week.

Besides it just dealt with transfer risk and not reducing it, while the G7 hadn’t properly outlined a plan to build up resilience, he added.

Saleemul Huq, a Bangladeshi fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development, said the pledge had been in planning for some time, driven by G7 host Angela Merkel and initiatives by domestic insurers.

“It’s a good sign, though will 400 million people be enough? The devil’s in the detail,” he added.

The insertion of ‘loss and damage’ in a global climate treaty has long divided rich and poor nations with low-lying island states and African countries clamouring the loudest.

The issue almost derailed UN climate talks in Doha in 2012 and Warsaw in 2013, and was just salvaged in Lima last December. For many poor nations it’s a ‘red line’.

Explainer: Loss and damage, a guide for the confused

Wealthier countries have been reluctant to accept liability for the onset of global warming, but support from the large G77 bloc including China could see it remain in the text.

“Its inclusion in the Paris agreement is an uphill struggle,” admits Ronny Jumeau, negotiator for the Seychelles and former spokesperson for the Alliance of Small Island States.

Jumeau welcomed the G7 initiative as progress but said: “in no way it replaces or meets the developing world’s requests for loss and damage, which we are nowhere near quantifying on our side.”

Countries needed to define what loss and damage applied to before claimants can request chunks of cash, he added.

While the commitment would be “extremely challenging” to implement with poor countries lacking robust legal infrastructures to handle claims, the G7 could expand coverage through governments handing out funds, Rauch told RTCC.

He said so-called “parametric triggers for weather insurance schemes”, innovative risk securities that base compensation pay outs not on actual losses but when weather exceeds thresholds, like too much rain in flooding, or too little for droughts, would be used.

Weather-related losses and damage from destroyed property to crop failures, have climbed from a yearly average of about $50 billion in the 1980s to almost $200 billion, according to the World Bank.

For Singh, G7 countries can talk about insurance, but it needs to be affordable and simple to claim.

“The litmus test will be how an old ill-prepared minority living in remote areas will get the claims,” he said.

The post G7 nods to loss and damage claims with climate insurance pledge appeared first on Climate Home News.

Japan prime minister Shinzo Abe (Pic: OECD/Flickr)

By Ed King

Japan is well off course to meeting the pledge it made with fellow G7 countries to target a low carbon energy system by 2050, according to an analysis of its climate goals.

Intense pressure from German chancellor Angela Merkel and counterparts from the EU, US and France saw prime minister Shinzo Abe back a raft of new carbon cutting plans on Monday.

But based on current policies the country will only draw around 42-45% of its energy from low carbon sources by 2030, says the team at Climate Action Tracker.

“Japan agreed in the G7 communique to complete the transition of its energy system towards decarbonisation by 2050, which is not possible with the current draft INDC,” said Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute, which helped produce this analysis.

“Japan’s proposed energy strategy will not only delay its shift to a low carbon economy, it will also put Japanese industry at a competitive disadvantage with other countries that are currently undertaking these shifts,” he added.

Japan is the world’s fifth highest greenhouse gas emitter and third largest economy.

On Tuesday an official at UN climate talks in Bonn confirmed it would deliver its contribution to a global emissions cutting deal by the end of July, after public consultation.

It’s expected to offer to cut carbon pollution 26% on 2013 levels by 2030, which equates to a 25.4% cut on 2005 levels.

Paris tracker: Who has pledged what for 2015 UN climate pact? 

That doesn’t stack up well compared to other major economies. The EU is aiming for 40% cuts on 1990 levels by 2030, the US 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030.

Japan’s offer could also be weakened because it intends to use growth of domestic forests, which act as carbon sinks, and carbon markets to meet its goals, says the analysis.

“The Climate Action Tracker rates this target as inadequate: if all countries adopted this level of ambition, warming would likely exceed 3-4C in the 2 century,” it says.

Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 Japan suspended operations at its atomic plants, focusing instead on importing oil, gas and coal. Nuclear is now forecast meet 20-22% of electricity needs from 2030.

According to the AP news agency, around 40 coal power plants are planned or being built in Japan, often funded directly through the government.

The country also stands accused of using funds marked as climate finance to retrofit and build new coal power plants.

In the past year the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has been linked with coal plants in Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar.

Research from the Oil Change International NGO suggests Japan spent US$20 billion from 2007-2014 on overseas coal plants and mines.

The post Japan’s G7 pledge at odds with domestic climate goals appeared first on Climate Home News.

Leaders stroll in the grounds of the Elmau Schloss castle in the German alps on June 7th (Flickr/ European External Action Service)

By Alex Pashley

The G7 has declared that the global economy must be decarbonised this century, in a statement hailed by campaigners.

German chancellor Angela Merkel was lauded for forging consensus among the world’s major economies to reverse centuries of fossil fuel-based development and usher in a clean energy future.

The backing of the world’s pre-eminent economies gees up chances of almost 200 nations agreeing to a long term goal in Paris this December to reduce the net release of heat-trapping gases to zero.

After two days of talks, the joint declaration said: “deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century.”

The countries agreed to back the “upper end” of a 40-70% reduction of emissions by 2050 on 2010 levels, curbs the UN scientific bureau says are needed to stabilise temperatures at 2C above pre-industrial levels – and avert catastrophic climate change.

Angela Merkel: The green realist who could make or break a climate deal

“Though the precise wording is slightly different, this is in effect a strong statement that the Paris agreement should have a long-term goal of net zero emissions in the second half of the century, as many developing countries are calling for,” said Michael Jacobs, advisor to the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

“To get the US, Canada and Japan to agree to this is a remarkable achievement by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, and a good sign for the negotiations.”

Merkel, once called the “climate chancellor” and with experience of the UN negotiations, brokered the agreement with Japan and Canada, perceived to be hold-outs given weaker action on the climate.

Canada is promoting tar sands extraction, while Japan has become reliant on fossil fuels since the Fukushima disaster triggered a flight from atomic power.

“Angela Merkel faced down Canada and Japan to say ‘Auf Wiedersehen’ to carbon pollution and become the climate hero the world needs,” said Iain Keith of campaign group Avaaz.

Leaders at Elmau Schloss castle in the Bavarian alps

“This long-term decarbonisation goal will make evident to corporations and financial markets that the most lucrative investments will stem from low-carbon technologies,” said Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute.

As fossil fuel emissions are scaled back, analysts see the underground storage of carbon dioxide and large scale tree-planting as critical to get to “net zero”.

The G7 will send a strong signal to other countries laying out climate plans, and shift the pattern of climate politics, said Nick Mabey, CEO of E3G, a thinktank in London.

“By agreeing to decarbonise the global economy inside a strong system of rules they have set a benchmark for emerging economies such as China to match,” Mabey added.

‘Right course’

While the statement shows support for a long-term climate goal, it is less strongly worded than some others.

Networks representing 6.5 million businesses last month called for net zero emissions “well before the end of the century”, with some urging carbon neutrality by 2050.

Sam Smith, head of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, said G7 countries needed to make more concrete commitments.

“The course is right, but more speed, ambition and specific actions are needed,” she said. “Developing countries are ready to move fast and far on renewables, but they need finance and technology from rich countries to do it.”

As well as supporting a science-based approach, the G7 committed to extend insurance coverage to 400 million people vulnerable to climate impacts and accelerate renewable energy in Africa.

They also vowed to track progress of countries’ ability to “promote increased ambition over time”, with a mechanism to bind countries to deeper cuts at certain time periods.

The G7 was attended by US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, French President Francois Hollande, Canadian PM Stephen Harper and Italian PM Matteo Renzi.

While climate was high up the agenda, delegates also held discussions on conflict in Ukraine, Greece’s possible exit of the Eurozone and ISIS.

The post G7 buoys climate talks with support for zero carbon goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

G7 countries are responsible for nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions (Pic: Number 10/Flickr)

By Ed King

G7 leaders appear to be edging towards agreeing on an historic target to wipe out greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

Talks on climate change ran late into Sunday night as officials debated a variety of carbon cutting options, RTCC understands.

These included a goal proposed by the EU to cut emissions 60% on 2010 levels by 2050, with full decarbonisation by 2100, and another goal for G7 countries to decarbonize their own energy sectors by 2050.

European Council president Donald Tusk led calls on Sunday for leaders to be ambitious, and lay the groundwork for a proposed UN pact, due to be signed in Paris this coming December.

“The fight against climate change is global — it goes way beyond Europe and G7. If we are not united in the G7, how can we convince others?” he said.

Summit chair and German chancellor Angela Merkel – who met with US president Barack Obama for one-on-one talks on Saturday night – is pushing hard for a united front on climate when the meeting wraps up on Monday.

Christoph Schott, a campaigner with the NGO Avaaz at the meeting said it was now “very very likely” text on a long term goal would make the final communique, due out at midday on Monday, but added it was unclear what form it would take.

“We understand that Canada and Japan are pushing back against reference to the G7’s role in the decarbonisation target”, said Liz Gallagher, head of climate diplomacy at the E3G think tank.

Merkel also wants G7 parties to ramp up support for the UN’s Green Climate Fund, part of a wider effort to deliver $100 billion of climate finance a year to poor countries by 2020.

Two weeks ago she announced Germany would double its contribution to the GCF, and asked fellow G7 leaders to work on a plan to hit $100 billion by the end of the decade.

“If the G7 is not able to agree a process to secure a clear pathway to $100bn by 2020, this would be a significant missed opportunity to progress the finance debate before Paris”, Gallagher added.

Report: Millions of businesses call for zero carbon shift

In a sign of growing hopes the G7 could deliver a significant boost to UN climate talks, on Sunday thousands of leading businesses issued a call for the G7 to adopt a long term goal

“We want a global climate deal that achieves net zero emissions well before the end of the century, and that to be a firm commitment at COP21 In Paris in December,” said Nigel Topping, CEO of We Mean Business.

A coalition of UK NGOs including Greenpeace, WWF and CAFOD also issued a plea to prime minister David Cameron to support a zero emissions target.

Getting previously reluctant governments from the US, Canada and Japan to agree to a long term climate goal would be hugely significant for global efforts to secure agreement in Paris, said Jennifer Morgan from the World Resources Institute.

“It makes a difference – having the G7 signal in any way they’re up for along term goal that makes avoiding 2C  [of warming] more real would I hope be a shot in arm for the in debate in the UN – it matters,” she said.

A number of options for a legally binding carbon cutting UN deal are being discussed at separate talks taking place in Bonn from June 1-11.

These include a complete phase out of all fossil fuels by 2050 or a goal to ensure all emissions were ‘net-zero’, meaning they would have to be stored underground or offset through mass tree planting.

The post G7 poised for historic call to phase out fossil fuel emissions appeared first on Climate Home News.

Schloss Elmau, will host the G7 from June 6-7 (Flickr/ Alexander Kluge)

By Alex Pashley

Climate change is seen a primary focus for the Group of Seven when leaders gather in an idyllic fortress in Bavaria this weekend.

Russia’s annexing of Crimea kicked environment down the agenda in 2014, as members expelled it from the forum of major industrialised nations.

Though in the midst of UN talks in Bonn a year on, and with a global warming pact to be signed off in December, climate will feature as Germany’s Angela Merkel chairs talks in the Schloss Elmau castle.

In an interview with Canada’s CBC News on Thursday Merkel indicated it was an “important issue” for the group, which would discuss how it can deliver more green funds to developing countries and accelerate its own carbon cutting plans.

Comment: Germany’s G7 can ensure Paris climate deal is a success

As many as 150 countries have until October to volunteer plans to cut carbon emissions. All G7 countries have indicated their pledges.

Meanwhile, rich nations need to iron out the details of a $100 billion a year fund for poor countries to prepare for the onset of more extreme and frequent weather.

“Climate will have a much more important role with Paris later this year and the Sustainable Development Goals in September,” said Shane Tomlinson, a senior fellow at the Chatham House think tank.

“The G7 has a lot of sway putting things on the agenda, signalling their intent and showing leadership,” he added.

Accounting for a chunk of the world’s GDP and setting the norms in political and financial architecture, the group comprised of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States has a chance to combine climate and development agendas.

In April, it set up a working group to examine climate change’s potential to destabilise weak countries, while energy ministers said in May they were in agreement over the ‘urgency’ of deep carbon curbs.

Report: G7 ministers hail agreement on climate goals

Merkel will keep that up, said Jan Kowalzig at Oxfam International.

She excused herself from attending last year’s UN summit by arguing she would make climate big at the G7, said the policy advisor, and expects the bloc to mention the $100 billion climate finance in its declaration.

And most of that will have to come from the G7, “either from public or private as a result of strong government action,” UN climate envoy Janos Pasztor, said on Thursday in New York.

Another issue central to UN talks are proposals to achieve ‘net zero emissions’ or a ‘decarbonisation goal’ before 2100. The G7 could give this needed impetus by backing it in the summit’s declaration, Tomlinson said.

The US rejects ‘zero emissions’ wording, RTCC understands, but could agree to decarbonisation ‘in the second half of the century’ wording. Canada is also pushing for softer language.

With Germany’s chairmanship and the attendance of the European Union, campaigners are demanding an end to subsidies for coal, oil and gas, while committing to 100% renewable energy at some point in the next century.

Martin Kaiser, head of international climate politics at Greenpeace said G7 members could do just that, giving a “strong signal to investors” and building trust at the UN talks in Bonn.

“But Japan and Canada are blocking efforts to send this signal,” he said in a statement.

Report: G7 stresses climate risks to fragile states

Out of the G7 nations, Japan and Canada pulled out of the Kyoto treaty to tackle global warming, while the US never ratified it.

Japan’s carbon-cutting pledge, known at the UN as an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) has been criticised for being inadequate in hitting a developed country goal of a 80% emissions cut on 1990 levels by mid-century.

The Asian country was revealed to be the biggest financer of coal projects abroad this week. Activists have called on Germany to seize on its presidency to ditch the most-polluting energy source, as well as European countries.

Despite being in the grip of an “Energy Transformation’ as it backs renewables and phases out nuclear, coal still generates 44% of the country’s energy mix, with CO2 emissions rising for three years before a dip in 2014 mainly due to burning of cheaper-and-dirtier lignite.

“We can’t stop using all of them [fossil fuels], but we have to set ambitious goals for the next few years,” said Merkel in the CBC interview.

The G7 would give a platform for Germany to “address the phase out of coal,” said Dennis Taenzler at the Berlin think tank, Adelphi.

And a report by the Carbon Tracker Initiative analysing Europe’s five main energy providers showed new coal-fired plants didn’t make financial sense.

The study shows how Germany’s E.ON and RWE, France’s Engie, Électricité de France, and Italy’s Enel, collectively lost 100 billion euros, or 37% of their stock market value from 2008 to 2013. More assets could become “stranded” as investors desert coal.

“Coal has got caught in the path of the utility death spiral, which is likely to continue wiping out value for shareholders if they keep betting on new coal plants,” Matthew Gray, lead author of the report, said.

The post G7 set for critical climate talks as Paris summit looms appeared first on Climate Home News.

G7 countries are responsible for nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions (Pic: Number 10/Flickr)

By Megan Darby

Chief executives of 120 funds are calling for a long term emissions reduction goal as part of a global climate pact to be struck in Paris this December.

The institutional investors, representing more than US$12 trillion of assets, wrote to G7 finance ministers ahead of their meeting in Dresden on Wednesday.

They urged the seven industrialised economies, including the US, Japan and Germany, to throw their weight behind a clear international target.

“Climate change is one of the biggest systemic risks we face,” the letter stated. “With the right market signals from policy makers, investment in low-carbon and climate resilient opportunities can flow and climate impacts and resulting economic damages can be mitigated.”

Countries should also submit “strong” national plans towards a global deal, argued the coalition of pension funds, banks and charitable trusts.

Investor CEO Letter

Governments have already agreed to limit global temperature rise to 2C above pre-industrial levels.

To have a decent chance of succeeding, scientists say greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced to net zero in the second half of the century. That means phasing out fossil fuel use and reversing deforestation.

Support is mounting for this aim to be enshrined in the Paris climate agreement. Networks representing 6.5 million businesses endorsed the idea last week, as did EU heavyweights Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande.

Anne Stausboll, signatory of the letter and chief executive of Californian pension fund CalPERs, said: “A global agreement in Paris will provide clarity for investors and advance the shift to a low carbon economy.”

Some US$53 trillion of investment will be needed in low carbon energy by 2035 to avoid dangerous climate change, added Philippe Desfossés, CEO of ERAFP, the pension fund for French civil servants.

“Investors need policy certainty to help deliver this. Knowing international policy is united on a clear path towards ever-lower emissions generates confidence that our low carbon investments will be supported, not harmed, by future policies.

“Finance ministers have a critical role to play and should support ambitious national climate plans and a long-term emissions reduction goal. A low carbon future is an imperative. Delaying strong policy on climate change would be a false economy.”

The post Investors worth $12trn call for long term carbon target appeared first on Climate Home News.

G7 leaders at the 2014 Hague summit (Pic: Number 10/Flickr)

By Ed King

Energy chiefs from the G7 group of industrialised countries say they are optimistic plans for a global climate change treaty will come together in Paris this December.

“I’ve never experienced so much agreement when it comes to the targets of the G7 countries,” said Germany’s economic affairs minister and vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel on Tuesday.

US energy secretary Ernest Moniz told reporters “we are going in the right direction” after two days of discussion in Hamburg. “The prospects are remarkably better than six or seven months ago.”

A joint statement released by the group, which numbers the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK as members stressed the “urgency” of “deep” greenhouse gas cuts.

The ministers called for a deal that was: “ambitious, robust and inclusive, and we remain committed to doing our part to effectively limit the increase in global temperature below 2C above pre-industrial level.”

Last month G7 foreign ministers released a communique stating climate change was a “foreign policy priority” and committing to help vulnerable states boost their resilience.

Road to Paris

June’s G7 summit, to be held at the luxury Schloss Elmau resort deep in the Alps, is one of a series of high-level meetings between heads of state between now and the UN Paris conference.

There nearly 200 countries are expected to thrash out plans for a deal to limit warming to below 2C above pre industrial levels, a target agreed by governments in 2009.

Five years ago in Copenhagen countries aimed for a similar goal, but talks ended in acrimony with leaders agreeing to a loose set of voluntary emission reduction proposals.

This time round feels different, says Joss Garman from the London-based IPPR think tank, who in 2009 was in the Danish capital working for a green NGO.

“The changing facts on the ground, together with the high-level diplomacy that has been going on over years in advance, means the hope that there is for a global agreement in Paris feels like it has more of a basis in reality than it did last time,” he argues.

The key facts on the ground are the falling costs and rising capacity of renewable energy, the relative decline of coal in China and last November’s US-China climate pact.

Paris tracker: Who has pledged what for 2015 deal?

Despite these advances the planet is still on course to warm as much as 4C by 2100, which would lead to more extreme weather events like droughts and floods, a UN panel of scientists has said.

“Paris might get us to 3C and we need a process after to get us to 2C,” says Jan Kowalzig, a climate advisor with Oxfam Germany.

What he wants to see from the G7 is less “waffle” and more specifics on how emissions will be cut and decoupled from economic growth, otherwise it’s hard to pin governments to any specific commitments.

Maas Goote, the EU’s top negotiator at Copenhagen agrees that details matter at this late stage of talks.

“I’d be looking for what said is between the lines. Sometimes it’s very obvious, for example specific targets, a direction or system we can set up so we can develop ambitious targets,” he says.

Diplomatic circus

Splitting the rhetoric from real progress will be problematic, as these meetings are coming thick and fast.

Last month the world’s top emitters gathered at the Major Economies Forum in DC, on the back of the World Bank spring conference.

That annual meeting ended with an unusual plea for Paris not to be judged on the level of carbon cuts it achieves, rather on the international regime it manages to set up.

This weekend German chancellor Angela Merkel hosts the Petersberg climate conference, next week Francois Hollande opens the Paris business and climate summit, and at the end of May Mexico will be the home of the annual Clean Energy Ministerial.

It’s a hectic round of meetings and will generate a substantial amount of punchy statements.

John Ashton, the UK’s chief climate diplomat from 2006-2012, remains unimpressed. “It’s not about how many meetings, it’s about what they are discussing,” he says.

So far Ashton has seen little evidence leaders are grappling with the hot issues that will be on the table in Paris; in particular the need for a long term decarbonisation goal.

“My sense is that people are ducking it – but the G7 should make a clear statement about the long term goal,” he says.

“The worry I have is that too many people are assuming there is a low risk road where everyone agrees because they are afraid to disagree.”

Finance for development

Money is one area Kowalzig hopes the Schloss Elmau meet can make progress.

He wants to see a stronger signal on how climate funds for poorer countries can be ramped up, and the G7 are committed to delivering the bulk of a $100 billion by 2020 pledge the developed world made in 2009.

Writing for RTCC, Liz Gallagher from the E3G think tank says leaders can also work out a plan to ensure major emitters like Brazil, India and China also play ball in December.

But a major problem facing the G7 is that within its ranks hide two climate laggards, Canada and Japan.

Neither country has officially indicated what level of Co2 cuts it will put forward for Paris – but rumours from Ottawa and Tokyo indicate they will not make waves.

Green groups are pushing Merkel to make a stand against prime ministers Stephen Harper and Shinzo Abe and demand they take a tougher line on climate.

Gallagher thinks the chancellor is edging back to the centre stage with Paris in mind and could spring a surprise in June, but Oliver Geden from the Berlin-based SWP think tank isn’t convinced.

“Merkel is not known for placing risky bets,” he says, pointing out she long ago handed the climate portfolio to her Social Democrat coalition partners.

Giant text

But tough words at these meetings can ensure the more complex textual negotiations that will take place at the UN run more smoothly later this year.

“The politicians can deviate from instructions but the negotiators have smaller margin to turn left or right,” says Goote.

The draft deal for Paris is running to over 80 pages of small print, and needs to be radically cut down for a deal to be manageable, and that’s where these ministerial meetings come into their own.

“In my experience most diplomatic meetings don’t bother about length of text. They talk about the big issues. That’s how it should be,” says Goote.

“If you have one controversial issue you can have 15 pages of options – but if you solve them on a political level you can do away with five pages.”

Ashton, now watching from afar rather than the coal face, says he wants to see the scars of fights emerge from the G7.

“It would tell you there is real effort going into it. I’d like to see more signs that people were really cutting to the chase.”

The post G7 ministers hail agreement on climate goals ahead of June summit appeared first on Climate Home News.