Monday’s approval follows similar green lights for airport expansion given by the previous centre-right government – and goes against the firm advice of the UK’s official climate change advisory body, as well as opposition from climate campaigners and East Londoners concerned about noise and carbon pollution.

The Climate Change Committee said last June that “there should be no net airport expansion across the UK” and “no airport expansions should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place”. A spokesperson told Climate Home this remains the committee’s position.

But, approving the London City expansion, Labour ministers Angela Rayner and Louise Haigh said in a statement that the lifting of the cap from 6.5 million to 9 million passengers a year would bring more jobs and tourists to London and boost business productivity. They added that the expansion would not conflict with the government’s “Jet Zero Strategy” – to clean up aviation – nor prevent the UK from meeting its 2050 net zero target because the additional emissions would not be significant.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Climate campaigners said the move highlights the flaws of the UK’s airport planning policy and its Jet Zero Strategy, which aims to cut emissions from aviation with cleaner fuels, carbon offsets and carbon dioxide (CO2) removal machines while passenger numbers increase by about half between 2018 and 2050.

Other bigger London airports – including Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted – are also considering expansion or seeking permission to expand.

For the London City decision, ministers relied heavily on advice from two planning inspectors – Claire Searson and Johanna Ayres. The inspectors concluded that, according to the Jet Zero Strategy, the emissions from airport expansions can be “accommodated within the planned trajectory for achieving net zero emissions by 2050” and therefore “our planning policy frameworks remain compatible with the UK’s climate change obligations”.

The Jet Zero Strategy was published by the last Conservative government in July 2022. It aims to reach net zero in the aviation sector by 2050 – a goal it says is “hugely challenging”.

In a world first, Grenada activates debt pause after Hurricane Beryl destruction

Alethia Warrington, a climate campaigner at an NGO called Possible, told Climate Home the UK was “ahead of the curve” compared to other countries in setting this target but that its projections for passenger growth were “incredibly dangerous”. Possible is challenging the strategy in court. Greenpeace campaigner Paul Morozzo said the strategy was built on “false hope”.

The plan does not include any measures to limit the number of flights or the capacity of airports, allowing planning inspectors and ministers to conclude that airport expansions are not counter to the strategy.

Instead, it plans to achieve just under half of the sector’s emissions reductions by buying carbon offsets. But many carbon offsets – where the buyer pays someone else to reduce emissions on their behalf – have been found not to deliver the emissions savings they claim.

The Jet Zero Strategy plans to get about a quarter of the emissions cuts needed from fuel efficiency improvements, another quarter from “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAFs) and a small amount from zero-emission aircraft.

Many airlines are buying more fuel-efficient aircraft, shaving a chunk off their planet-heating pollution. But the viability and sustainability of SAFs has been challenged by campaigners, regulators and even airline executives.

Currently, the only non-fossil fuel commercially available for planes is made from biomass, turning crops like corn, soy and oil palm, or used cooking oil, into jet fuel.

But there is nowhere near enough of this being produced to meet demand. Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary said in December “there isn’t enough cooking oil in the world to power more than one day’s aviation”. As a result, SAF is currently more than four times as expensive as regular oil-based jet fuel.

Biofuels also often compete with food crops, worsening hunger and encouraging deforestation. The UK’s advertising regulator recently ruled that airline Virgin Atlantic should not have told customers it flew a plane on “100% sustainable aviation fuel” because it gave the misleading impression that the fuel was entirely green.

Andrew Symes is the CEO of a company called OXCCU which has just started producing tiny test quantities of SAF in a container next to Oxford Airport in England. Earlier this month, he told journalists visiting the site that SAFs based on biofuel alone would not be sufficient, so his company is developing a SAF that mixes carbon dioxide and green hydrogen.

OXCCU CEO Andrew Symes holds up his company’s catalyst and SAF at its new test plant in Oxford (Photo: OXCCU)

But Symes acknowledged that the fuel is “not perfect”, as the CO2 will be bought from industry – and burning it will damage the planet. But, he said, it still offers a “huge emission saving” compared to conventional jet fuel, and could be made carbon neutral by capturing the emitted CO2 from the atmosphere.

Producing it in this carbon-neutral way, however, would require huge numbers of CO2 removal machines, as well as solar panels and wind turbines to produce the renewable electricity needed to make green hydrogen, he noted.

He predicted this kind of fuel would be used in planes in small quantities towards the end of the decade and could be scaled up from there. But Possible’s Warrington disputed that assertion.

“The idea that we can magic up this gigantic renewable capacity to produce e-fuel so a small group of wealthy frequent flyers never have to take the train – it’s just not doable,” she said. Warrington predicted it would be a “fairly sizable number of decades” before zero-carbon flights are common.

Even if all the emissions reduction measures outlined in the UK Jet Zero Strategy’s high-ambition scenario are successful, it still envisions aviation producing 19 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year in 2050 – about half the current level.

It plans to address these left-over emissions through CO2 removals, but Warrington is sceptical. “There’s no payment mechanism for this. It would be horrendously expensive. It would be extremely resource-intensive,” she said. “It just doesn’t stack up at all.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post London airport expansion spotlights danger of “false hope” Jet Zero strategy appeared first on Climate Home News.

The US government told stakeholders yesterday that, while demand side measures to reduce plastic production, consumption and waste can be part of the solution, Washington recognises that supporting goals to encourage and advance supply side measures will be critical tools, according to notes from a source at the briefing.

Three more sources at the briefing confirmed to Climate Home that the US government had shifted its position, as first reported by Reuters.

Up until now, the US has sided with Saudi Arabia in arguing for the new treaty to focus on recycling, while measures to curb production should be left up to individual countries.

The US is the only G7 member not to join the self-proclaimed “high ambition coalition against plastic pollution”.

The members of the self-described “high-ambition coalition” are in light blue

Their change of stance drew praise from environmental campaigners and anger from the plastic industry’s main trade association – the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

Industry anger

The ACC’s CEO Chris Jahn said the White House had “cave[d] to the wishes of extreme NGO groups” and was “willing to betray US manufacturing”. He warned that the Senate is likely to block the US’s entry to a plastics treaty which reflects this new position.

But environmental campaigners reacted positively. Tim Grabiel, a lawyer from the Environmental Investigation Agency NGO, said it “marks a decided shift in position” which “has the potential to salvage difficult negotiations”. But he called on the US to go further by committing to cutting virgin plastic production by 40% by 2040 – a target put forward by Rwanda and Peru at the latest rounds of negotiations last April.

FAO draft report backs growth of livestock industry despite emissions

Dennis Clare, a plastics negotiator for the Pacific island nation of Micronesia, told Climate Home that the new US position was a “major development with the possibility of turning the tide towards a much more ambitious treaty”.

Years in the making

The journey towards a global plastics accord began at the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi in 2022 when all governments agreed to set up a treaty “to promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics”.

Since then, negotiators have held four rounds of talks, with the fifth and supposedly final due to take place in the South Korean city of Busan from November 25 to December 1. Any agreement struck there would then be signed off at a diplomatic conference a few months later.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Ahead of those talks, the European Union has warned that “delaying tactics” from some nations will make it “very difficult” to agree a treaty in Busan.

The European Commission blamed “mainly major oil producing countries” for slowing negotiations while a Latin American negotiator told Climate Home in June that these delaying tactics were coming from the Like-Minded Group, which includes Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Production or just pollution?

One key divisive issue is whether the treaty should be limited to halting plastic pollution or also set targets to reduce the rising plastic production that is causing the problem in the first place. Besides environmental contamination, plastic contributes to planet-heating emissions as its manufacture relies on fossil fuels.

Powerful governments like Russia, Saudi Arabia and India have opposed targets to limit plastic production, preferring to focus on promoting recycling and keeping plastic waste out of the sea. The US and Iran have also tried to water down the treaty’s ambition.

Key UN report lends weight to Pacific plan for shipping emissions levy

On the other hand, a coalition of countries launched an initiative called “Bridge to Busan” aimed at reaching an agreement with targets to reduce plastic production. Plastics are made from oil and gas, and their production is a significant and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Micronesia is one of the nations leading the Bridge to Busan coalition. Their negotiator Dennis Clare told Climate Home on Thursday that he hopes the US now signs up “and seeks to play a leadership role on addressing plastics production, which is the cornerstone of any effective treaty on plastic pollution”. The US has not indicated whether it would support this initiative.

There are also splits over the level of detail the treaty should include, how legally binding it should be, and what a financial mechanism to support government efforts to tackle plastic pollution should look like, according to an EU summary from June.

While some countries want a new dedicated fund, others including Gulf nations want to use an existing institution like the Global Environment Facility to channel finance. Additionally, Ghana has proposed a global fee on plastic production.

The post US turns against plastic producers, boosting hopes for ambitious treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

The report, overseen by a steering committee of 32 governments and published by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), found that a levy would do less damage to the global economy than a standard for cleaner fuels and, if designed right, could help reduce global economic inequality.

Marshall Islands shipping negotiator Albon Ishoda said the analysis showed that a direct levy on emissions “is the fastest, cheapest and most equitable way” to decarbonise shipping, a sector that accounts for 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution.

A levy would force ship owners to pay for every tonne of greenhouse gases their vessels emit, making the use of more-polluting fuels – like today’s oil-based bunker fuel – more expensive. It would incentive the use of lower-emitting fuels like ammonia, biofuels, methanol and hydrogen.

Ishoda said he now expects to see countries coalesce around an emissions levy, adding that “alternatives such as relying solely on a fuel standard could be up to twice as damaging for global GDP by 2050, with the poorest countries hit hardest”.

IPCC’s input into key UN climate review at risk as countries clash over timeline

But written comments on the UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report show that Brazil, Argentina and China disputed its findings. Latin American nations have long led opposition to an emissions levy, fearing it will harm their trade-dependent economies.

Argentinian officials noted that they were “surprised” at the conclusion that levies would lead to less economic damage in the long term while Brazil wrote that this was “nonsensical”.

Argentina said it was “policy-prescriptive and therefore unacceptable” for the report to suggest that disbursing the revenues would help developing countries more than developed ones, while China argued this aspect should not have been factored in as “the impact assessment should focus on the impact of the measure, rather than the impact after revenue distribution”.

Levy or fuel standard?

Governments have already agreed to put a price on shipping emissions as a way to reach net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”. But they have not settled on exactly how to do that, instead tasking experts to study the impacts of various proposals.

One proposal – which most countries support – is a fuel standard that would see ship owners pay for emissions only above a certain level. Owners of ships emitting below this level could potentially sell licenses to those emitting above it, enabling them to continue polluting. This would incentivise shipowners to use cleaner fuels or to save fuel by sailing slower.

Some countries – like the Pacific island states and many European nations – want to combine this fuel standard with a levy, where ship owners would have to pay varying amounts based on their vessels’ total annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable-energy carbon credits rejected by high-integrity scheme

Under the direction of governments, experts from UNCTAD, the World Maritime University, DNV and Starcrest Consulting Group produced four separate reports, modelling dozens of different scenarios.

UNCTAD found that any emissions-cutting scenario would push up the cost of shipping, damaging the global economy by around 0.1-0.2% by 2050. It did not model the economic benefits of how the measures would help curb climate change.

Comparing a levy to a fuel standard, the UNCTAD report concluded that “in the long run (2050), scenarios that envisage a levy have a smaller impact” on economic growth.

University College of London academic Tristan Smith, who worked on the paper, explained that the levies modelled lead to greater subsidies for zero-emission fuels and higher incentives for fuel efficiency than the proposed fuel standard. He told Climate Home that this lowers the cost of the transition and therefore the damage to economic growth.

Fairer and faster?

The report found that a fuel standard without a levy would damage the economies of developing countries – particularly small islands (SIDs) and least developed countries (LDCs) – more than developed countries because any increase in shipping costs hits the poorest hardest.

A high emissions levy of $150-300 per tonne of CO2 equivalent would be fairer, it found, broadly damaging developing countries’ economies less than developed ones, assuming that the revenues were distributed to poorer nations. Such a levy would actually boost the economies of most LDCs, it found, and damage SIDs less than the alternatives.

Consultants from Starcrest interviewed representatives of governments and business in various countries and heard concerns that economies exporting cheap, bulky goods over long distances would be badly hit by an increase in the cost of shipping. It cited Tonga’s exports of the medicinal kava plant and the US’s exports of wood chips as examples.

If green measures drive ships to slow down to save fuel, then countries that rely on exporting perishable goods to faraway destinations would suffer, Starcrest was told. Argentina’s beef and Chile’s cherry industries could be vulnerable.

As first airline drops goal, are aviation’s 2030 targets achievable without carbon offsets?

University of Sao Paulo economist Paula Pereda told Climate Home that a levy would “quickly reduce emissions”, but warned against its “potential regressive impacts, which more negatively affect poorer countries and poorer families in all countries”.

While revenue redistribution could help tackle this unfairness, it could also increase emissions from the compensated households and increase the complexity of the mechanism, she added.

“Balancing environmental benefits with social equity remains a key challenge in the implementation of carbon tax policies,” she said.

Governments will debate whether to pursue a levy or fuel standard at the next set of IMO talks in London, starting on September 30. They are aiming to have a measure in place by 2027, which means they will need to agree it at talks in April 2025.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Key UN report lends weight to Pacific plan for shipping emissions levy appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) announced on Tuesday that eight renewable energy methodologies, which cover about a third of the carbon credits available on the voluntary market, cannot use its “Core Carbon Principles” (CCP) seal of approval.

The ICVCM, an independent watchdog, aims to address widespread concerns over the quality of carbon credits after many projects have been accused of overstating their climate and societal benefits. It is assessing groups of offsetting projects to determine whether they comply with the CCP criteria, which are designed to identify and encourage high-integrity carbon credits that meet requirements on governance, emissions reduction and sustainable development.

The body said existing standards are not strict enough on judging whether renewable energy projects need the funding generated by selling carbon offsets in order to go ahead – a concept known as “additionality”. But it emphasised that renewables like solar, wind and hydropower are key to tackling climate change and carbon credits “still have a role to play” in financing them.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Since the eight methodologies were designed as long as 20 years ago, the cost of renewables has collapsed, and their profitability in many parts of the world has rocketed, meaning they are more likely to make money without needing extra revenue from selling carbon offsets.

The ICVCM said that “for several years, carbon market experts have noted concerns about the additionality of many renewable energy activities and the difficulties in transparently demonstrating the additionality of these activities approved under existing methodologies”.

Major carbon-credit registries like Verra and Gold Standard stopped accepting new grid-connected projects in 2019, with the exception of those located in least-developed countries (LDCs).

But pre-existing renewable energy activities continue to generate a sizeable chunk of all the offsets available on the registries.

According to a recent analysis by Carbon Market Watch, over 280 million renewable energy credits are available in the voluntary carbon market. If companies and individuals used all those credits, that would compensate on paper for emissions equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide Thailand released into the atmosphere last year.

Inigo Wyburd, a policy expert at Carbon Market Watch, called the ICVCM’s decision “a positive step”. “It sends a clear message to tackle the issue of the many low-quality credits still in circulation and undermining the market,” he told Climate Home.

Despite long being written off as largely worthless by climate experts, renewable energy credits are still popular among corporate buyers.

Fossil fuel majors like Shell and Total, automakers and cruise operators were among the biggest purchasers of renewable energy credits over the last 12 months, an analysis of Verra’s database shows.

In one transaction last year, German carmaker Audi used nearly 100,000 carbon credits generated in 2021 from an Indian solar project to claim that its handover of electric vehicles in Europe and the United States was “CO2 neutral” despite the emissions involved in producing them.

Japanese parcel delivery service Yamato Transport Company and public entities like Australia’s Brisbane City Council and Western Sydney University also relied on renewable offsets to claim carbon neutrality in 2023.

A spokesperson for Audi told Climate Home: “We ourselves are not only dependent on the standards established in the market but depend on them being viewed critically too”, adding that the company is “convinced that constructive criticism leads to higher-quality projects and general transparency”.

The spokesperson said the automaker also increasingly relies on “on-site inspections, thorough due diligence and audit processes” and wants “to act independently of external providers in the medium term”. It founded a joint venture with ClimatePartner in 2022 to develop its own carbon offset projects.

Because of earlier concerns about whether carbon offsets generated by renewable energy deliver the emissions reductions they claim, their price has been falling over the last two years.

According to data provider MSCI, the average price is just $2 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced – less than half the price of offsets derived from projects aiming to protect forests, tackle methane emissions or promote energy efficiency. Renewable energy credits are likely to see further falls in price after the ICVCM’s rejection.

As first airline drops goal, are aviation’s 2030 targets achievable without carbon offsets?

But Amy Merrill, CEO of the ICVCM, left the door open to better renewables methodologies obtaining CCP approval. She called on carbon crediting programmes to develop methodologies “that better reflect the rapidly changing and variable circumstances around renewable energy deployment”.

“While renewable energy costs have fallen dramatically around the globe over the past decade,” she said, “they have not fallen evenly across all countries and high up-front expenses and other barriers mean that there are still many places where it is difficult to deploy renewable capacity.”

The cost of renewables is particularly high in remote rural parts of developing countries without access to the electricity grid, on islands with small populations and in areas where the authorities are hostile to renewable energy for ideological reasons, particularly in parts of the US. Methodologies enabling projects in these places would have the best case to get CCP approval, market experts told Climate Home.

IPCC’s input into key UN climate review at risk as countries clash over timeline

Verra has announced that it will revise some of its additionality requirements “to address the deficiencies noted by the ICVCM”.

The registry plans to submit its new rulebook to the watchdog and give existing projects the possibility of updating their quantification of credits accordingly. “This is part of our commitment to providing a path for all VCS [voluntary carbon standard] projects that wish pursue a path to CCP labelling,” Verra said in a statement.

A Gold Standard spokesperson said ICVCM’s rejection of the methodologies was “ambiguous and potentially harmful to high-quality renewable energy carbon credits on the market today” as different regions across the world still face various financial and technical barriers making carbon finance necessary.

They added that Gold Standard would consider the ICVCM assessment framework among other inputs in its next review of relevant methodologies.

The ICVCM’s negative assessment of existing renewable energy credits could also have repercussions for the new United Nations carbon mechanism currently under development.

Canada’s Olympics kit provider hit with greenwashing complaint in France

Renewable energy projects make up four-fifths of all projects seeking a transfer from the old Kyoto-era Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) into the new market system being set up under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, Climate Home revealed last January.

The projects need formal authorisation to proceed from the countries where their activities are located.

Carbon Market Watch’s Wyburd said ICVCM’s rejection of the renewable energy methodologies “will hopefully send a few shock waves” to the countries having to make those decisions. “Given their profound shortcomings, these credits should not be given a new lease of life under the future UN mechanism,” he added.

At the same time, the ICVCM approved other methodologies to capture methane from landfills and to detect and repair methane leaks in the gas industry. That means 3.6% of unretired carbon credits have now been approved to use the CCP label.

Shell, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Western Sydney University and Aviva did not respond to a request for comment on the impact of the ICVCM’s renewables decision. Total declined to comment.

The article was updated on 9/8 to add a comment received from Audi after publication.

(Reporting by Joe Lo and Matteo Civillini, editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Renewable-energy carbon credits rejected by high-integrity scheme appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a statement, Air New Zealand’s CEO Greg Foran said that because of delays to the delivery of more fuel-efficient aircraft and because “so many levers needed to meet the target are outside our control”, the airline was dropping its target and withdrawing from the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), an influential non-governmental arbiter of corporate climate targets.

As several airlines have made similar targets for 2030 or 2035, the move has cast doubt on whether they can meet them. It has also raised difficult questions about the role of carbon offsets in decarbonising aviation, a sector that accounts for an estimated 2-3% of global emissions.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Sustainability consultant and offset developer Chris Hocknell told Climate Home that Air New Zealand’s decision to leave SBTi shows that the body’s rules, particularly around offsets, are too harsh. He accused SBTi of “environmental zealotry”, a “lack of realism” and of not engaging with businesses trying to reduce their emissions.

But Thomas Day, a researcher at the New Climate Institute, said weakening SBTi’s rules to accommodate companies that are not aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C would “completely defeat the purpose of 1.5C validations”.

Dutch airline KLM has a similar target to the one Air New Zealand has just abandoned, which it plans to meet with more efficient aircraft and cleaner fuels. Their spokesperson told Climate Home that they “are sticking to that [target]” but “at the same time, we recognise that it is not easy to decarbonise aviation”.

While Air New Zealand’s Foran partly blamed delays to the delivery of more fuel-efficient aircraft for dropping the target, the KLM spokesperson said their deliveries of new aircraft which consume about a quarter less fuel per passenger-kilometre are “currently more or less on schedule”.

But, the spokesperson said, “we recognise the picture Air New Zealand paints regarding the availability and pricing of alternative jet fuel” and “would like to see even more being done from governments to encourage production”.

Not enough biofuels

While fuel-efficiency can shave a chunk off a plane’s emissions, the only way to fly a plane without producing emissions is to stop using fossil fuels to power them.

Currently, the only non-fossil-based fuel commercially available is made from biofuels, turning crops like corn, soy and oil palm or used cooking oil into jet fuel.

But there is not enough of this being produced to meet demand and, as a result, it is currently more than four times as expensive as regular oil-based jet fuel.

UAE’s ALTÉRRA invests in fund backing fossil gas despite “climate solutions” pledge

Jonathan Lewis, transport lead at the Clean Air Task Force, told Climate Home that he doubts whether there will ever be enough of these biofuels produced to power the world’s planes. A recent report he co-authored found aviation will need about 40% more energy in 2030 than all the world’s biofuels will be able to supply.

It’s a concern shared by the CEO of RyanAir Michael O’Leary. He told the Guardian in December: ” I don’t see where we will get the supply in the volumes we need. You want everybody running around collecting fucking cooking oil? There isn’t enough cooking oil in the world to power more than one day’s aviation.”

Even if the world could produce enough biofuels, that is likely to come with bad environmental and social side-effects, as the growing of crops to fuel planes displaces crops for food and encourages the chopping down of forests.

Other options for cleanly powering planes are fuels based on green hydrogen and ammonia. But these fuels are in early stages of development and would require big changes to airport infrastructure and, for hydrogen, aircraft design.

Scottish oil-town plan for green jobs sparks climate campers’ anger over local park

Airlines’ climate targets are all based on emissions per passenger and per kilometre so flying less won’t help them meet them, but it will reduce their and the world’s total emissions.

No airline has said it will reduce flights for climate reasons, so any pressure on that is likely to come from consumers and governments. France recently banned some short-haul domestic flights to howls of protest from the airline industry.

Offsets to fill the gap?

Another way for airlines to meet their climate targets is for them to buy carbon offsets. Lewis said that that was likely to be “a necessary part of decarbonising the aviation sector”.

While many airlines have bought offsets whose claims of emissions reduction are highly questionable, initiatives like the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market are trying to improve the industry’s integrity.

But on the same day Air New Zealand announced it was leaving, the SBTi released the results of a consultation on the use of carbon offsets to meet climate targets.

UK court ruling provides ammo for anti-fossil fuel lawyers worldwide

It found that the evidence it had reviewed “suggests that various types of carbon credits are ineffective” and “there could be clear risks to corporate use of carbon credits for the purpose of offsetting”.

This review, published by SBTi’s technical experts, struck a very different note to an earlier statement put out in April by the body’s board which said offsets “could function as an additional tool to tackle climate change” and “consequently, SBTi has decided to extend their use”.

That statement by the board prompted a revolt by staff, many of whom called on CEO Luiz Amaral to resign, which he did in July citing personal reasons.

Too strict or lax?

Hocknell accused SBTi’s technical experts of a “very puritanical approach” and said he hoped that SBTi’s pro-offsets elements won out in what he predicted would be a “big, big fight”.

Hundreds of companies have dropped out of SBTi after failing to follow through on a promise to set sufficiently ambitious climate targets. “If I get my crystal ball out, you’ll see hundreds more companies drop this before the end of the year,” said Hocknell.

Pollution clampdown on Delhi kilns threatens brick workers’ future

But New Climate Institute’s Thomas Day, who has accused SBTi of being too lax, told Climate Home “the purpose of the SBTi is to support the transformation of sectors and to offer a platform for companies who commit to this transformation.”

“It would completely defeat the purpose of 1.5C validations if the rules would be redefined to accommodate companies who are not willing or able to do so,” he added.

“If the technologies do not yet exist to put the aviation or oil and gas sectors on a 1.5C-aligned trajectory, then we need to recognise this and consider as a society how to address this, rather than moving the goalposts to pretend that everyone is on track,” Day said.

Pedro Martins Barata, the Environmental Defense Fund’s carbon markets lead, told Climate Home there were two ways of looking at Air New Zealand’s announcement.

One is that the airline set a target without measuring the consequences and “should get a reputational bad rap”. The other is that “in a voluntary system you need to walk players through how to increase their ambition over time and allow flexibility, or risk alienating corporate players and essentially becoming irrelevant in the process”.

“Are we better served by a small number of incredibly ambitious companies that can commit to far-reaching standards?” he asked, “or by having a much broader movement that can significantly impact climate change?”

“If you’re in the second camp,” he said, “you’d want Air New Zealand to do something even by purchasing good carbon credits, rather than simply walk away from it all.”

This article originally said incorrectly that Denmark had banned some short-haul flights.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Matteo Civillini)

The post As first airline drops goal, are aviation’s 2030 targets achievable without carbon offsets? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Veteran climate diplomat Laurence Tubiana is in contention to be France’s new prime minister, with three left-wing parties backing her as a compromise candidate following inconclusive legislative elections. But infighting among the leftist political coalition that won the most seats means she has yet to be confirmed as its official choice.

France’s Green Party (EELV), Socialist Party (PS) and Communist Party (PCF) have proposed Tubiana – a key figure in securing the Paris Agreement on climate change – for the leadership role, representing the New Popular Front (NFP) coalition of left-wing parties. She has no formal political affiliation.

The head of the PS, Olivier Faure, said Tubiana “completely corresponds to what we are promoting”, praising her as the “architect of COP21 [where the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015], commissioner for the climate convention, economist and diplomat engaged in both the environmental and social fields”.

But the biggest member of the NFP alliance, hard-left party France Unbowed (La France insoumise, LFI), is opposed to Tubiana getting the job, as they fear she is too close to the current President Emmanuel Macron and his centrist Renaissance party. “If this is the profile our partners are working on, I’ll fall off my chair,” said LFI coordinator Manuel Bompard on Tuesday, adding the suggestion was “not serious”.

In the July 7 elections, which resulted in a surprise defeat for the far right, no block won a majority of seats in the French legislature, known as the National Assembly. Of the 577 seats, the NFP left-wing alliance won 182, President Macron’s centrist party 168 and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) 143.

On Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron accepted the resignation of current Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, although he will lead a caretaker government with a limited mandate until a new government is named.

The choice of the new prime minister is ultimately up to President Macron, but in order to govern, the PM must have the support of a majority of National Assembly deputies.

The left-wing parties have been searching for a joint candidate and, after the LFI’s suggestion of Huguette Bello was rejected by the Socialists, Tubiana’s name was put forward. Faure said Tubiana had been consulted before the suggestion was made.

UK court ruling provides ammo for anti-fossil fuel lawyers worldwide

Tubiana, he said, is “someone who has strong convictions, who has never compromised. She has always been on that side [the left], she has never deviated. This is a demonstration of her ability to stand her ground.”

But according to French newspaper Le Monde, the LFI suspects she is too close to Macron. He twice offered her the job of ecological transition minister, which she declined, and she recently co-signed an editorial calling for the the left-wing block to reach out to Macron’s centrist party in order to govern.

Climate pedigree

Tubiana started out at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research before setting up and leading an NGO working on food security and the global environment called Solagral through the 1980s and 1990s.

In 1997, then French President Lionel Jospin of the Socialist Party appointed her as his environmental advisor until he stepped down in 2022.

Tubiana next founded an influential French think-tank called the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) before re-entering government as France’s lead negotiator in the run up to COP21, at which the landmark Paris Agreement was signed.

Since then, she has been an official United Nations champion on climate action, as well as president and CEO of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), which funds green think-tanks and media outlets including Climate Home News.

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

In these roles, she has pushed for governments at UN climate summits to agree to phase out fossil fuels, and called carbon capture and storage a false solution to the fossil fuel industries’ emissions.

In 2018, Macron appointed her as a member of France’s official climate advisory body, the High Council on Climate Change.

The ECF has recently worked alongside the French and Kenyan governments looking into global green taxes that could fund climate action.

Laurence Tubiana (left) celebrates the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015 (credit: IISD.ca/Kiara Worth)

Environmental lawyer Arnaud Gossement said Tubiana’s appointment as France’s prime minister would be “a really good idea” as she is “a recognised climate specialist”.

Florence Faucher, professor of political science at French university Sciences Po, told Climate Home that Tubiana’s appointment “would certainly be interesting” but “I really doubt it [will happen]”.

The leftist coalition has said it hopes to find agreement on a candidate soon, with the new National Assembly set to meet for the first time on Thursday. One way the matter could be settled is by holding a vote among the new left-wing deputies.

On Wednesday morning, EELV deputy Sandrine Rousseau told French TV: “The discussions are not over – we will find a solution.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Climate diplomat Laurence Tubiana backed by some left-wing parties as next French PM appeared first on Climate Home News.

On June 20, the Supreme Court in London ruled that, in deciding whether to approve a new oil well in Horse Hill in southern England, the authorities must consider the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the oil, not just the much smaller volume of emissions from getting the oil out of the ground.

Announcing what has been called the “Finch ruling”, Judge George Leggatt said: “The emissions that will occur on combustion of the oil produced are ‘effects of the project’ because it is known with certainty that, if the project goes ahead, all the oil extracted from the ground will inevitably be burnt, thereby releasing greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere in a quantity which can readily be estimated.”

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

The ruling has already helped campaigners challenge a planned coal mine in Cumbria in the north of England, set to provide fuel for steel-making. The UK’s new Labour government said last week that the previous Conservative government had made an “error in law” when approving the mine and withdrew support for the mine’s developer in a separate court case being heard this week.

Campaigners against the Cumbria coal mine oppose bringing “zombie” coal back from the dead on July 16, 2024 (Photo: Friends of the Earth)

Speaking during a break in that case, Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe said the Finch ruling had strengthened the green group’s legal argument against the coal mine. The mine’s developer – which is still defending the case – did not assess the emissions from burning the coal and, in the wake of the Finch ruling, “we believe it’s very clear that was unlawful”, she told Climate Home.

The ruling is likely to resonate beyond the UK, she added, because it concerns regulations that are derived from European Union (EU) law. Although the UK has left the EU, many of its laws remain similar.

Greenpeace Norway campaigner Halvard Raavand said his colleagues had “a small celebration” in their Oslo offices when the Finch ruling was handed down, popping bottles of alcohol-free champagne. “It’s highly positive,” he said. “We’re very, very relieved – it shows it’s possible to take on fossil fuels and win.”

New South African government fuels optimism for faster energy transition

Like the UK, Norway is not an EU member but bases much of its law on that of the bloc. Greenpeace Norway is challenging in court its government’s approval of three new oil and gas fields, arguing that they failed to properly consider the climate impact from burning the fuels – known as scope 3 emissions.

Raavand said that, while Norway and the UK’s national courts are not related, Norwegian judges are likely to consider the UK’s judgement as a precedent. “Other courts across Europe might look to each other too,” he said.

Gina Gylver, head of Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway), and Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace in Norway in Oslo District Court on November 28, 2023 (Photo: Rasmus Berg/Greenpeace)

Over in Amsterdam, Dutch Friends of the Earth campaigner Sjoukje van Oosterhout also celebrated the Finch ruling. “This verdict sets an important precedent,” she told Climate Home. “Judges worldwide will be looking at this.” She said it could boost campaigners’ legal challenge to Dutch company One Dyas’ plans to drill oil in the Wadden Sea, part of the North Sea.

Climate law professor Harro van Asselt said the UK ruling was “important” and “may well have implications for EU member states considering licensing fossil fuel projects”. He added that judges had made similar rulings in Australia and Norway in the last few years – although the Norwegian case, which influenced the Finch ruling, is under appeal.

While its ripple effects will be strongest in the EU and countries with similar laws, van Asselt said he would not exclude the possibility of the Finch ruling influencing court judgements elsewhere, in particular in common-law countries like Australia. Common law is a legal system that evolves based on judges’ rulings, generally found in former British colonies like the US, Canada and New Zealand.

De Kauwe of Friends of the Earth added that the Finch ruling could influence environmental impact assessments across the world.

Most of the oil and gas being extracted in Europe (red) or discovered, or under development (blue), is in the North Sea (Picture: Global Energy Monitor/Screenshot)

The recent change in government in the UK is also likely to hamper new fossil fuel production projects in the country. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party was elected on a manifesto promising to ban the method of gas extraction known as fracking and not to issue new licenses to explore new oil and gas fields or grant new coal mining licenses.

Gareth Redmond-King is the international lead at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit advocacy group. He told Climate Home that, at last year’s COP28 climate summit, British politicians heard from Global South government negotiators that politicians in their countries had cited the UK’s decision to issue new North Sea oil and gas licences as justification for pursuing their own fossil fuel exploration. That excuse has now been taken away, he said.

“Leadership works both ways,” he added. “The precedent set by this [Labour] decision makes it harder for fossil fuel companies to justify drilling in other countries. The UK is now the first G7 country to have pledged to put a moratorium on new exploration. That’s a big step.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post UK court ruling provides ammo for anti-fossil fuel lawyers worldwide appeared first on Climate Home News.

But now it is becoming the end-point for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) where, after a journey of over 1,400 km through Uganda and Tanzania, the oil is stored and put onto ships bound for customers abroad.

EACOP is a joint venture between French multinational TotalEnergies, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation and the governments of Uganda and Tanzania. It plans to bring oil from the Tilenga and Kingfisher oil fields near Uganda’s Lake Albert, down past Lake Victoria and all the way east through Tanzania to the Chongoleani Peninsula.

While the $4-billion project promises economic growth and energy security for the region, it has sparked protests due to its negative environmental, economic and social impacts – which have been met by crackdowns on the part of the authorities in both countries.

East African climate activists have joined forces with their international counterparts in a campaign called #StopEACOP, arguing that the pipeline will exacerbate climate change by transporting 246,000 barrels of oil a day to customers to burn, releasing greenhouse gases. They also warn that it will displace thousands of people and endangers water resources, wetlands, nature reserves and wildlife.

The Ugandan government says that it has the right to exploit the country’s fossil fuel resources in order to fund much-needed economic development and is taking measures to reduce the project’s climate impact, such as heating the pipeline with solar energy. Wealthy nations like the US, Canada and Australia, meanwhile, are also increasing fossil fuel production.

Living “like town dwellers”

In Tanzania, Chongoleani residents said they had been warned by the village chairman and other ward leaders not to talk to journalists, but Climate Home spoke to two whose land had been taken over by the government for the pipeline and its port.

Without adequate compensation, they said they had been unable to buy a new farm in the area and have to buy food from the city rather than growing their own and selling the surplus.

Mustafa Mohammed Mustafa said his family used to own two farms in Kigomeni village, together about as big as eight football pitches. On these, they grew coconut, cassava, corn and groundnuts. They ate some of it and sold the rest.

But with the pipeline coming, the government-owned Tanzania Ports Authority took over their land, compensating them with 15m Tanzanian shillings ($5,700), which hasn’t been enough for them to buy new farmland in the area.

“We live like town dwellers these days,” said Mustafa. “We buy firewood, we buy charcoal, we buy lemons, coconut, cassava. We buy all of these supplies from the city centre. How is this alright?”

House prices soar

Part of the reason they cannot afford a farm, says Mustafa, is that EACOP’s arrival has increased the price of local land, as it is considered a project area with potential for business investment.

Villagers either put a high price on their land or hold onto it and only accept offers from the government or foreign investors, according to Mustafa, believing this will get them a better deal.

A sign for Chongoleani oil terminal (Photo: Climate Home News)

Mustafa blames the government for not giving them proper information from the initial stages of the project, nor a choice about whether they wanted to sell their property. Instead, he said, they were told that the project is of great economic importance for the country.

“I am angry that the government took advantage of our ignorance of legal matters and gave us a bad deal that we couldn’t argue against,” Mustafa said.

Sitting alongside Mustafa in Chongoleani village, Mdiri Akida Sharifu said he regrets selling his family’s land in Kigomeni but they had no other option.

“At the moment, we have very little faith that this will benefit us. When government officials came here, they encouraged us to give up our land with the promise that once the project started, we would be given priority in getting jobs. But now that we’ve given up our land, we even have to buy lemons from Tanga town,” he said.

Countrywide compensation battles

Elsewhere along the pipeline’s routes, landowners have complained about unfair compensation, saying the government paid them in 2023 using price estimates made in 2016, ignoring seven years of inflation. Kamili Fabian from the Manyara region told local paper Mwananchi that he was paid less than a third of his land’s value. “Where is the justice in that?” he asked.

The government says it uses national and international standards to compensate people fairly. Energy minister Doto Biteko has said 35bn shillings ($13m) had been allocated for this purpose and the government had built 340 new homes for relocated people.

Reporting on these issues is a challenge. When Climate Home visited the coastal village of Putini, a man called Mahimbo – who would only give one name – refused to comment on the compensation process and said local leaders had told the villagers not to speak to journalists about the pipeline.

But he took Climate Home to the office of village chairperson Abdallah Said Kanuni to seek permission to comment on the record. “We have been given clear instructions to neither speak with journalists nor allow them to interview villagers on matters relating to the pipeline, unless the journalists have official permits from the regional [government] office,” Kanuni said.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Compensation battles are playing out far beyond this area.  A Total spokesperson told Climate Home nearly 19,000 households have been compensated for the effects of the pipeline and the associated Tilenga oil field on them and about 750 replacement houses have been handed over.

But Diana Nabiruma, communications officer for the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), said her organisation had spoken to hundreds of people who had received compensation and had yet to meet any that said it was adequate.

She said a major problem has been that people were paid in 2023 based on their land’s value in 2019. As in Chongoleani, the price of land rose in those four years, partly because of EACOP and the promise of paved roads. Many people have not been able to replace the property they lost, she said.

Ugandan riot police officers detain an anti-EACOP activist in Kampala, Uganda, on October 4, 2022. (REUTERS/Abubaker Lubowa)

Nabiruma added that many people want to seek top-up compensation but are scared – and unable to afford – to challenge EACOP and the government in court. In Uganda’s capital Kampala, police have beaten and arrested activists protesting against the pipeline.

The Total spokesperson said EACOP will improve living conditions, adding that Total complies with local regulations and international standards and there is a fair grievance management mechanism in place for local people.

An EACOP spokesperson said that since last year, the project has provided households affected by leasing of their land in Chongoleani with food baskets and cash transfers, adding that the villagers are given preferential access to unskilled or semi-skilled work on the project.

The Tanzania Ports Authority did not respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by CHN staff and Joe Lo, editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation appeared first on Climate Home News.

For the first time this year, Saudi authorities required all pilgrims to wear identification on a “Nusuk Card” around their neck, allowing security forces to check they had the Hajj visa. Banners and phone messages warned against attending Hajj without this visa and many breaching these rules were deported.

A government-controlled Youtube channel said before the Hajj that the Nusuk Card “enables access to urgent medical care” and one survivor told Climate Home that, despite feeling tired and dizzy, he felt unable to ask for medical help for fear of punishment and deportation because he only had a tourist visa.

Temperatures in Mecca reached 51.8C this year, an unusually high figure which Climatemeter scientists have said was “mostly exacerbated by human-driven climate change”.

Over 1,300 people died during the heatwave and more than four-fifths of them were without official permits, according to Saudi Health Minister Fahad Al-Jalajel. Foreign governments have largely blamed travel agents for facilitating these irregular pilgrimages, while the Saudi authorities and climate change have mostly escaped blame.

One of those without a permit was Ibrahim, a retired Egyptian head teacher. To dodge visa checks, he walked 19 km in the baking heat to Arafat, a sacred hill near Mecca. He told Climate Home that he had asked buses carrying pilgrims with permits to stop and take him “but no one stopped, no one helped us”.

#No_Hajj_without_a_permit because services are directly linked to it, and accessing the Holy Sites without a permit is a violation that merits legal consequences.#Makkah_and_Madinah_Eagerly_Await_You#No_Hajj_without_a_permit#Hajj_1445H pic.twitter.com/aapODeC018

— Ministry of Hajj and Umrah (@MoHU_En) May 22, 2024

Fahad Saeed, a Pakistani climate scientist with Climate Analytics, told Climate Home: “The Hajj pilgrimage is a profound reminder to every Muslim of equality in the eyes of God. Yet, the disparity in the safety of pilgrims based on their financial means starkly contradicts this spirit of equality.”

Two-tier system

The city of Mecca is where the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, was born and lived most of his life. One of the religion’s five central pillars is that all believers should, if they’re healthy and can afford it, visit the city at least once on a pilgrimage known as Hajj and carry out a series of rituals.

Since Muhammad’s time, Islam has expanded across the globe and is now the religion of about a quarter of the world’s people. As the Hajj takes place for a single five-day period each year, there are far more people wanting to take part than the city can handle. Over 1.5 million pilgrims arrived in Mecca for the event last June. 

Beyond lithium: how a Swedish battery company wants to power Europe’s green transition with salt

Official visas to enter Mecca during the Hajj are rationed through a lottery system, working with specialist travel agencies. But some travel agents also advise pilgrims on how to enter Mecca without an official visa.

That was how Ibrahim, who had been saving up for the Hajj for thirty years, got to Mecca. He did not want to reveal his second name out of fear of the Saudi government’s punishment.

He told Climate Home that he couldn’t afford an official visa 500,000EGP ($10,000). He entered Saudi Arabia with a normal tourist one and, with the help of a tourism company, he was able to bribe his way through checkpoints into Mecca.

He found accommodation in the suburb of Al-Aziziyah but authorities quickly raided the area before the start of Hajj. Many pilgrims without official visas were fingerprinted and deported but Ibrahim was just driven out of the city towards Jeddah.

For 1,000 Riyals ($267), he found a taxi to take him back to Al-Aziziya where he hid until the first day of Hajj. This is the pilgrimage’s most important day when pilgrims spend a day next to Mount Arafat, where Prophet Muhammad delivered his Farewell Sermon. There, they pray and ask for forgiveness.

Most pilgrims get buses from Mecca to Arafat but, worried about soldiers searching these buses, Ibrahim and his companions made the 19 km journey on foot. When he got there, the area was crowded and the temperature reached nearly 50C (122F).

The 62-year old said he began to feel exhausted and dizzy even though he was not fasting that day. “My foot, which had undergone three surgeries before, felt like a piece of fire. I could not walk”, he said.

Standing up in the heat lessens the blood flow to the brain, which can cause fainting but also heart or kidney failures, explained Mike Tipton, a British professor who advises athletes and soldiers on heat.

Muslim worshippers make their way to cast stones as part of a symbolic stoning of the devil ritual on June 18, 2023. (Photo: Medhat Hajjaj/apaimages)

Ibrahim said that getting water for him was difficult and that he did not want to ask the clinics along the road to Arafat for medical help because of his lack of visa. “We saw the bodies of pilgrims on the road in need of help,” he said, “some of them were dead, some were suffering from heat exhaustion and no one was helping them”.

The claim that irregular pilgrims were denied help has been made by many, including the official spokesperson for pilgrims from Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region Karwan Stoni, who told Agence France Presse they could not access air-conditioned spaces that the authorities had made available.

Ibrahim survived, completed his Hajj and returned to Egypt. But Jordanian cousins Tariq, 48, and Hossam Al-Bustanji, 52, were not so lucky. Their cousin Ahmed told Climate Home that their companions told him they died after walking about for seven or eight hours without any services.

“They fell and pleaded for water but no one helped them”, he said. “Their bodies were buried in Mecca and were not sent to Jordan despite our requests”.

Pilgrims receive a spray of water from volunteers in Mecca on June 17, 2024 (Photo: Arab World Press)

While irregular pilgrims had it worse, even those with official visas suffered and some died in the heat. Jordanian Rania Bassam told Climate Home her brother and his family went to Mecca, where he volunteered as a doctor. 

She said they complained to her about the services provided and the extreme heat. Bassam’s brother later died in Arafat. “His body was identified by his fingerprint but we were prevented from seeing him and saying goodbye”, she said.

Tipton said that, while many of the dead were likely to be over 65-years old with existing heart problems, the heat can kill healthy young people too from heat stroke. 

Without getting bodies into cold water, heat stroke can be a “runaway route to hypothermia with death occurring at [a core temperature of] 40-44C”.

Safer Hajj

Campaigners are appealing to Saudi authorities to take measures that would reduce the risk of mass deaths, especially as the situation is expected to get worse as the world warms.

A 2021 study published in Environmental Research Letters found that if the world warms by 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels, heat stroke risk for pilgrims on the Hajj will be five times greater.

Heat expert Mike Tipton said that they should encourage people to sit down when they can, reduce any stress, fan people and cool their hands, feet and bodies down with cold water. But, he said, it’s difficult to look after so many people.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Limiting numbers would help, he said, and that’s the route the authorities have been going down. Government reactions in Saudi Arabia and across the Muslim world have been to prosecute and crack down on travel agents who encourage pilgrims to evade visa laws.

But that has not been enough to dissuade Ibrahim’s wife. Despite her husband’s ordeals, she is keen to follow in his footsteps next year, performing Hajj unofficially.

But speaking in their Giza home, Ibrahim warned her against the idea. “You will not be alive again if you go unofficially – either you go on an official Hajj or not at all”, he said.

(Reporting by Eman Muhammed and Joe Lo, editing by Joe Lo and Matteo Civillini)

The post Saudi visa crackdown left heatwave-hit Hajj pilgrims scared to ask for help appeared first on Climate Home News.

Opinion polls predict that voters are set to back the left-wing Labour Party over the incumbent Conservative government by a significant margin, a BBC tracker shows.

Lammy told an event during London Climate Action Week that he supports the green reforms of the global financial system that have been proposed by the leaders of Kenya, Barbados and the World Bank.

Clare Shakya, climate lead at The Nature Conservancy, a green group, told Climate Home that Lammy’s comments were “massively ambitious” and “exactly what the world needs to hear right now”.

But promises on climate finance to developing countries in the Labour Party manifesto are the same as the ruling Conservative Party. Lammy argued that “all across the world, a cost-of-living crisis is making it hard to make the case solely for taxpayers’ funds” to support climate action in developing nations.

The Conservatives and Labour have both pledged to restore the overseas aid target from 0.5% to 0.7% of gross national income when “fiscal circumstances allow”. Both have committed to providing £11.6 billion ($14.7bn) in international climate finance between 2021 and 2026.

Claudio Angelo, international policy coordinator for Brazil’s Climate Observatory, commended Lammy “for being so vocal about the need for the UK to step up” on climate multilateralism.

But, he added, the Labour politician “doesn’t seem to offer anything new on climate finance and now, with four months left until COP29, we desperately need a breakthrough”.

IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down

At the COP29 climate summit in November, governments are due to agree on a new post-2025 goal for international climate finance. Developed and developing countries have been divided so far, with developing nations proposing targets of $1.1-$1.3 trillion a year but wealthy governments refusing to openly discuss figures until the issue of where the money will come from is addressed.

Outside the UN climate talks, a coalition led by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley – partly backed by the US, Germany and others – has been pushing for multilateral development banks to lend more money to green projects. Kenyan Prime Minister William Ruto has called for taxes on polluters to raise money for climate finance.

Lammy told a forum on climate politics, organised by think-tank E3G on Tuesday, that the global financial system’s rules “were set up in a different age, a different century – they don’t work today”. “We want to work with [World Bank president] Ajay Banga and others to bring about the changes that are required,” he added.

Angelo said he supports the need to shake up the system, but described Lammy’s references to reforming multilateral development banks while limiting public finance as “standard developed-country talking points”.

Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll

Asked about the Labour manifesto promise to “audit” its relationship with China, Lammy said Labour would “engage appropriately” with the world’s biggest emitter on key policy areas, adding “there is no more important issue in so many ways than the climate issue.”

He praised the EU, US and Australia for their efforts to talk with China, and said a Labour government would “cooperate with China when we can”. The previous day, he told the India Global Forum that he would also work with India on climate change.

Li Shuo, director of the China climate hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington DC, told Climate Home that “the UK has been quite self-absorbed and quickly disappeared from the list of interlocutors with Beijing since COP26 in Glasgow”.

“The desire to restart engagement is a welcome development,” he added. “This is particularly true if the US election goes south. Much of the rest of the world will need to hold the fort.”

On domestic energy policy, Lammy reiterated Labour’s pledge not to issue any new licences for oil and gas production in the North Sea.

The party’s manifesto outlines further national climate policies, including decarbonising electricity by 2030 – five years earlier than the current government’s plans – by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar and quadrupling offshore wind.

(Reporting by Daisy Clague and Joe Lo; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post UK’s Labour promises “solidarity” with poorer nations on climate – but no new cash appeared first on Climate Home News.

Speaking on Monday at an old London coal power plant-turned-shopping centre, IEA head Fatih Birol said he would be “very happy” to see new NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) that “include no new unabated coal and also early retirements of existing coal”.

In 2021, the Glasgow Climate Pact, agreed at the COP26 UN climate summit, called on countries for the first time to accelerate efforts “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”. “Unabated” means power produced using coal without any technology to capture, store or use the planet-heating carbon dioxide emitted during the process.

Birol, a Turkish energy analyst, said that stopping coal-plant construction was “as our North American colleagues would say, a no-brainer”. Yet, he added, while “the appetite to build new coal plants is in a dying process, some countries still do it”. He singled out China’s plans to build 50 gigawatts (GW) of new coal plants.

Shutting down existing coal plants, particularly young ones in Asia, is more difficult because the companies that have built and operate them would lose money, Birol noted. There is almost $1 trillion of capital to be recovered from existing coal plants, “so who is going to pay for this?” he asked, calling it “a key issue”.

Birol praised the Just Energy Transition Partnerships that have been set up between wealthy countries and several coal-reliant emerging economies like South Africa and Indonesia to help address the problem. He added that “there are some countries in Asia who can, in my view, afford to retire their coal plants earlier”, without mentioning which.

Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof announced at the event organised by the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which includes 60 countries, that Malaysia aims to reduce its coal-fired power plants by half by 2035 and retire all of them by 2044. It will also tackle social and economic challenges through reskilling programmes for workers and promoting renewable energy adoption, he added.

Speaking later at London’s defunct Battersea power station, Indonesia’s deputy minister for maritime affairs and investment, Rachmat Kaimuddin, explained some of the challenges his country faces in phasing out coal.

Kaimuddin (right) speaks alongside Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan (centre) in London on June 24, 2024. (Photo: Powering Past Coal Alliance)

After China and India, Indonesia has the world’s biggest pipeline of new coal power plants under construction. Kaimuddin said the state energy company would not build any more but added that cancelling existing contracts is “very, very difficult” unless the company constructing the plant wants to pull out – which none have yet.

In addition, shutting down existing power power plants is expensive, he said, because many coal power plants have “take or pay” contracts signed in the 1990s under which the government pays them whether their electricity is required or not.

Another concern is that the Southeast Asian nation does not want to lose its energy security in the switch to renewables, Kaimuddin noted. Indonesia currently mines domestically most of the coal it uses. “We’re trying to partner with other people to try to build [a] renewable supply chain in the country,” he said.

Millions of people in Indonesia work in the coal industry, he added, so a shift towards clean energy will need to include new jobs for them. “It doesn’t have to be green jobs – it has to be jobs, right?” he said.

Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll

Singapore’s climate ambassador Ravi Menon told the same event that the economies of China, India and Indonesia are growing and so are their energy needs, meaning that renewables have to be rolled out rapidly to meet demand.

Energy storage is also required to smooth intermittent supply from solar and wind, while electricity transmission infrastructure, including power lines, is needed to transport power from solar and wind farms to cities that account for a large share of consumption.

Both Kaimuddin and Menon said carbon credits should be used to offset losses for the owners of coal plants that are shut down early. “Retiring [plants] definitely will destroy financial value and… and we also need a better way to compensate them,” said Kaimuddin.

The event’s focus on coal raised concerns among some campaigners. Avantika Goswami, climate lead at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, told Climate Home that “singling out coal” in the NDCs, rather than including fossil fuels more broadly, “equates to giving a free pass to oil and gas-dependent countries, many of whom are wealthy”.

It could penalise many developing countries, where coal is a cheap source of fuel and energy needs are still growing, she warned.

“A global climate policy that allows unfettered use of oil and gas – which together account for 55% of fossil fuel emissions – is incomplete and inequitable,” she added.

Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at advocacy group Oil Change International, said the IEA’s head should know that “the time to focus only on coal as a climate culprit is over”. He pointed to a subsequent agreement at COP28 last year where governments agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels in their energy systems, without setting a deadline.

“We need a full, fast, fair, funded phase-out of all fossil fuels. Setting such a low bar for ambition is out of touch and inequitable, keeping the door wide open for major oil and gas producers,” Ioualalen added in a statement.

He called on rich countries that are “most responsible” for the climate crisis to foot the bill for a just transition. “We know they have more than enough money. It’s just going to the wrong things like fossil fuel handouts,” he said.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

This story was updated after publication to include comments from Avantika Goswami at the CSE and Romain Ioualalen at Oil Change International,.

The post IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down appeared first on Climate Home News.

Cassie Flynn, climate lead for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said the results were “undeniable evidence that people everywhere support bold climate action”.

While the top-line global figures are interesting, there’s a lot to be learned from comparing the countries too. You can use our search bars to check responses for the countries you’re interested in, but here are Climate Home’s five takeaways from the data:

1. Climate change is not just a rich-world concern

Concern about climate change is still sometimes presented as a luxury issue that worries only privileged people with nothing more immediate to care about.

But this poll – called the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024, and conducted for the UNDP with the University of Oxford and GeoPoll – suggests that citizens of wealthier countries dwell on climate change much less often than those in the least developed countries.

Almost two-thirds of people in Uganda say they think about climate change every day while less than one-third of people in the US, Japan, China, France or the UK do the same.

Hamira Kobusingye, a young Ugandan climate activist, told Climate Home that Ugandans are seeing the effects of global warming first-hand. “My grandmother often complains that her land no longer yields enough food,” she said.

“In Uganda, you have to be extremely wealthy to say you’re not affected by the climate crisis,” she added.

2. Saudis back their government’s climate action

When asked how well their countries are doing at addressing climate change, people generally shrug their shoulders. The most popular answers are “somewhat well” followed by “neither well nor badly”.

But the people of Saudi Arabia are by far the most positive about their country’s performance, with almost two-thirds saying it is doing “very well”.

Globally, less than a fifth say the same – and residents of big, developed countries are among the most negative about how they are doing.

3. Russians are most opposed to fast energy transition

Globally, 71% of people say their country should replace fossil fuels with renewable energy either quickly or very quickly.

Support for a fast transition is highest in the South Asian island nation of Sri Lanka, where importing fossil fuels is a huge drain on the economy.

But it’s also popular in fossil fuel producers like Nigeria, South Africa, Iran and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, it’s low in Russia, which has plentiful supplies of oil and gas, and where concern for climate change is pretty low.

As with many other issues, the US – the world’s biggest oil and gas producer – is divided. A quarter say it should not transition at all, more than any other nation. But a similar amount say it should transition “very quickly”.

4. People in rich, colder countries feel safer from extreme weather

Globally, nearly four-fifths of respondents want more protection from extreme weather. But those figures are lowest mainly in wealthy temperate nations like the US, Germany and Japan and highest in poorer, hotter countries like Benin, Ecuador and Haiti.

Some high- and middle-income countries came near the top of the list wanting “more protection”, including Greece, Mexico and Italy. All are hot during their summer months and frequently suffer from heatwaves and wildfires.

5. Even citizens of rich countries want them to do more to help poorer ones

Globally, nearly four-fifths of citizens say rich nations should give more help to poorer countries to address climate change.

Support for this is unsurprisingly higher among inhabitants of lower-income countries than those of richer ones. But even in wealthy countries, their people want them to do more.

The country with by far the biggest minority saying “less help” is the US – the nation that has proportionately done the least to help through providing climate finance in recent years, in relation to its size, economic power and historical emissions.

The pollsters did not specify whether “help” meant financial support. But Iskander Erzini Vernoit, co-founder of the Morocco-based Imal Initative think-tank, told Climate Home it shows developed countries could give more climate finance without losing domestic support.

“This further demonstrates that there is no leg to stand on for those hiding behind so-called political realism to justify a failure to confront the staggeringly low fiscal ambition from rich countries to support poorer countries with new grant-equivalent climate finance,” he said.

The post Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll appeared first on Climate Home News.

The head of the European Commission’s environment department, Virginijus Sinkevičius, said on Tuesday that the last round of plastics talks in the Canadian city of Ottawa in April had managed to “move the text forward despite delaying tactics by countries wanting to lower the ambition”.

Yet, he told environment ministers from EU member states, “at the current pace… it will be very difficult to close the negotiations at INC5 in November”. INC5 is the fifth and supposedly final set of talks on the treaty, taking place in the South Korean city of Busan from November 25 to December 1.

A Latin American plastics negotiator, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home that everything Sinkevičius had said was right and the delaying tactics were coming from the Like-Minded Group, which includes Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at the University of Gothenburg who follows the talks, said there were “enormous challenges to closing the negotiations in November”. Campaigner Andrés Del Castillo, with the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), added that Busan would either result in a “very, very weak agreement, or a realisation on Sunday evening that we did not succeed”.

Plastic production divisive

At the UN Environment Assembly in March 2022, all governments agreed to set up a treaty by the end of 2024. The talks’ organisers still hope agreement can be reached in Busan and the treaty can be officially signed by governments at a diplomatic conference a few months later.

One key divisive issue is whether the treaty should be limited to halting plastic pollution or also set targets to reduce the rising plastic production and consumption that is causing the problem. Besides environmental contamination, plastic contributes to planet-heating emissions as its manufacture relies on fossil fuels.

At the Ottawa talks, governments did not agree to continue formal discussions on how to cut plastic production. But informal talks have since taken place between countries in favour of reducing production, and there will be a formal meeting of an expert group in August.

Sinkevičius warned yesterday that “these expert meetings may not be enough to secure a successful end of negotiations” this year. “We need to step up effort at all levels, including high level political involvement” before and during the Busan talks, he added.

Lithium tug of war: the US-China rivalry for Argentina’s white gold

Speaking after Sinkevičius, French diplomat Cyril Piquemal was more optimistic, saying”significant progress” had been made in Ottawa. He noted that the G7 group of wealthy economies committed last week to reducing production of plastic and that China made a similar commitment earlier this month. “We are really on the home run,” he said through a translator.

Researcher Almroth said she was concerned that, if Donald Trump were to be elected president of the US, then it could weaken the ambition of treaty negotiations if they spill over into 2025. “A lot of people want to finish [this year],” she said, adding that “a start and strengthen approach will likely be very useful”.

But Dennis Clare, who negotiates for the Pacific Island state of Micronesia, said “it is much more important that the plastics treaty solves the overarching problem than that it is concluded by any particular date”.

“If essential elements such as constraints on plastics production are not included,” he said, “the magnitude of that mistake will only become more glaring by the day, as the health, climate and litter crises accelerate worldwide – and we will of course have to immediately get back to work to remedy the situation”.

Ana Lê Rocha, plastics lead at the GAIA campaign, agreed that the pact should not be rushed. “If we need to choose between maintaining ambition on the content of the treaty versus maintaining ambition on the timeline, it is preferable to compromise on the timeline than to have a treaty unable to meet its goal: to end plastic pollution,” she argued.

CIEL’s Del Castillo agreed, but said just prolonging the talks was unlikely to result in success. “So what we [would] need is the recognition that we need more time and a reset in the negotiation that offers a path to a useful agreement in a realistic time frame,” he added.

Big splits

While not naming individual countries and their positions, Sinkevičius told EU ministers there were still “major remaining divergences” such as on whether to limit the production of plastic.

In a written update, the European Commission said some governments – “mainly major oil-producing countries” – had slowed down negotiations in Ottawa. Similarly, Canadian environment minister Steven Guilbeault told Climate Home in April that some countries “are in more of a hurry than others”.

Powerful governments like Russia, Saudi Arabia and India have opposed targets to limit the production of plastic, preferring to focus on promoting recycling and keeping plastic waste out of the sea. The US and Iran have also tried to water down the treaty’s ambition.

On the other hand, a coalition of countries called the “Bridge to Busan”, which includes the EU, wants an agreement that curbs the production of plastic. Plastics are made from oil and gas, and their production is a significant and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Visa chaos for developing-country delegates mars Bonn climate talks

There are also splits over the level of detail the treaty should include, how legally binding it should be, and what a financial mechanism to support government efforts to tackle plastic pollution should look like, the EU said.

While some countries want a new dedicated fund, others including Gulf nations want to use an existing institution like the Global Environment Facility to channel finance. Additionally, Ghana’s proposal for a global fee on plastic production remains “on the table”, the EU added.

Environmental Investigation Agency campaigner Christina Dixon said “we will need deep pockets and [to] rely on developed countries, as well as major producers, to front some of the costs if we are truly going to craft a treaty fit for purpose”.

“We need those countries leading on ambitious measures on production and product design, such as the EU, to be equally vocal on the necessary funding to deliver that ambition,” she added. “Otherwise we will have a fantastic treaty but no way to implement it.”

(Reporting by Joe Loe; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post EU warns “delaying tactics” have made plastic treaty deal “very difficult” appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a letter to German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, seen by Climate Home but not made public, several coalitions of climate activists say that visa barriers exclude many participants from the Global South from the “climate negotiations that will determine the future of their countries and communities”.

Ugandan campaigner Hamira Kobusingye from Fridays for Future Africa, one of those behind the letter, told Climate Home: “This is an example of systemic and climate racism, as most of the affected delegations were primarily from Africa and Asia. This issue is rooted in the lingering effects of colonialism.”

Government negotiators also sounded the alarm, collectively agreeing in formal conclusions at the talks that they “noted with concern the difficulties experienced by some delegates in obtaining visas to enable them to attend sessions” in Bonn and urging “timely issuance of visas”.

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Delegates from Europe and most of the Americas do not need visas for short stays in Germany while those from Africa and most of Asia do.

The German Federal Foreign Office told Climate Home it was “important” to them that all accredited UN conference participants were able to attend.

A spokesperson said they were “in close contact with the UNFCCC Secretariat months before the conference, including on the visa issue, and sensitised the missions abroad at an early stage to the upcoming conference and the potential increase in demand for visas”.

They added that UN accreditation for the Bonn talks “cannot replace the actual examination of the visa application” and there are legal requirements for getting a visa for the EU’s Schengen zone of free movement.

Climate Home has seen seven letters issued by the German government denying visas to African campaigners and negotiators. One other rejection letter was issued on Germany’s behalf by another European Union government, as some EU countries share responsibility for issuing visas in certain nations.

The letters say that the visas were not issued because the delegates had not proved they had the funds to cover their stay or that they planned to leave before their visa expired or that the information or documents provided were not reliable.

Not welcome?

The organisers of the letter to the German government said they have found seven other cases where delegates only had their visas approved after the start of the two weeks of talks, meaning many had to rebook flights.

Bonn makes only lukewarm progress to tackle a red-hot climate crisis

Others reported being unable to get an appointment with visa officials of the German embassy in their country.

One delegate from an African country, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home that they went to the German consulate three times before they received information on how to get a visa.

They were told they weren’t going to get a visa appointment in time and only received one after getting contacts in their own government to help. “Not everyone has those advantages though, so I was pretty lucky”, the delegate said.

Proscovier Nnanyonjo Vikman from Climate Action Network Uganda said she only received her visa five days after the start of the talks and had to change her flight. She said many delegates feel “they are being harassed to enter a country that obviously doesn’t like them”.

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

As well as limiting access, the visa issues delayed the talks. In the opening session, the Russian government blocked the adoption of the agenda because, they said, several of their negotiators had not received visas. They relented after receiving assurances the visas would be granted quickly.

The German government spokesperson told Climate Home that the foreign office liaises closely with the UNFCCC to find solutions for “queries or discrepancies” including “for visa applications submitted too late during the conference”.

Call to move mid-year talks

Similar issues have plagued previous European climate summits. In 2022, two campaigners from Sierra Leone were left stranded in Nigeria after the Swedish government sent their passports to be processed in Kenya as they applied, unsuccessfully, for visas to attend the Stockholm+50 environment summit.

The UN talks are held in Bonn every June as it is the home of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose secretariat organises the meeting and is permanently based in a riverside tower a short walk from the conference centre.

The mid-year conference is supposed to help negotiators discuss issues in advance of the COP climate summit, a more high-profile event held every November, and to share experiences on how to tackle climate change.

Vikman, who went to Bonn to promote methods of adapting farming to the effects of climate change, said that the talks should be moved from Germany to a place everyone can access.

“We don’t need to die coming to Bonn – let’s move, she said.

Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate

Kobusingye echoed her call. “It is crucial to remember that the role of the UN is to unite nations. If Global North countries cannot facilitate this process, Germany and the UN should consider moving the conference to a more receptive country that is visa-free for delegates from the Global South,” she said.

She contrasted the German government’s hosting with the UAE’s arrangements for COP28 last November and December when, she said, “every accredited delegate received their visa promptly, demonstrating that it is possible to accommodate all participants efficiently”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

This story was updated on June 14 to add comment from the German government received after publication.

The post Visa chaos for developing-country delegates mars Bonn climate talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post Bonn bulletin: Fears over “1.5 washing” in national climate plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post Bonn bulletin: Climate finance chasm remains unbridged appeared first on Climate Home News.

As discussions wrapped up on Tuesday, representatives of countries on both sides expressed disappointment with the process that is intended to result in an agreement on a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) at COP29 in Baku in November.

They will leave the German city with a 35-page informal “input paper” stuffed with wildly divergent views and repeatedly described as “unbalanced” by negotiators during the final session of the talks.

“It is time we get down to serious business,” said a negotiator from Barbados, pleading with colleagues to accelerate discussions before “more and more SIDS [small island developing states] and LDCs [least-developed countries] disappear from this gathering because we disappear from this planet”.

Show us the money

For most developing countries, the sticking point is the lack of negotiations on the size of the new goal – known as the “quantum” in technical language. Governments have already agreed that the new target should be set “from a floor of $100 billion per year” – the existing commitment – and should take into account “the needs and priorities of developing countries”.

Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate

The Arab and the African groups landed their proposals for a new dollar amount on the table in Bonn – between $1.1 trillion and $1.3 trillion a year for the five years from 2025. Meanwhile, they accused rich states of failing to do the same and refusing to talk about numbers.

“We haven’t heard anything from them on their vision for the quantum,” said Egypt’s negotiator. “Every time there’s been [one] excuse or another why we couldn’t discuss quantum,” reiterated Saudi Arabia’s delegate.

Egypt’s negotiator Mohamed Nasr (middle) speaking with other delegates in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

China echoed the same sentiment, but went further in its tirade against some developed countries. “We have been dealing with [a] few insincere and self-serving nations that have no intention of honoring international treaties,” the country’s negotiator said, referring to the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“We have no intention to make your number look good or be part of your responsibility as we are doing all we can to save the world,” he added, hinting at rich countries’ long-standing attempts to broaden the list of finance contributors to developing countries that are wealthier and more polluting.

‘A long way to go’

Developed countries accused their counterparts of entrenching their established positions instead of looking for areas of common ground.

Australia’s representative said the current document – which is not a negotiating text – shows “how much we disagree”. She added that there won’t be an agreement in Baku “if we engage in a game of striking out each other’s texts […] or a tug-of war”.

She expressed her government’s view that a numerical dollar target is “the star on the top of the Christmas tree” and should only be decided once the structure of the goal has been settled.

The UK’s negotiator noted that “we have a long way to go”, as “we are not in a process that will help us get to a final text”.

A delegate from the United States called for a “step change” in the process. “I feel most of what we’ve been doing is repeating views and not going into details on what folks mean,” he added.

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

Following the comments from developed nations, Saudi Arabia’s negotiator took to the floor again for the Arab Group. “I have to defend members of my group,” he said. “We are being gas-lit”.

It is now be up to the co-chairs of the talks to prepare a new informal document laying out a path forward based on the divergent views. The new paper will be sent to governments ahead of the next round of talks, which are yet to be scheduled.

“We encourage you to reach out to others using the inter-sessional period [between meetings] to discuss areas where you see fertile common ground,” said co-chair Zaheer Fakir in closing remarks. “Up until now we have not seen concrete efforts to reach out to your partners.”

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini and Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post Bonn bulletin: Fossil fuel transition left homeless appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post Bonn bulletin: Crunch time for climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

At UN talks on a new post-2025 climate finance goal in the German city of Bonn, the umbrella group for 134 developing countries said wealthy governments could raise $1.1 trillion a year, needed by poorer nations to curb emissions, adapt to climate change and deal with the damage it causes.

An unpublished position paper by the G77+China, seen by Climate Home, maintains that rich countries would “only” need to spend 0.8% of their GDP per year to raise $441 billion. That would mobilise enough private finance to reach $1.1 trillion a year, it adds.

It notes that 0.8% of GDP is much less than the 6.9% of GDP developing countries currently spend paying interest on their debt.

UN chief calls on governments to ban fossil fuel ads

The paper says developed countries can raise $441 billion “without compromising spending on other priorities entirely by adopting targeted domestic measures” such as a “financial transaction tax”, a defence company tax, a fashion tax and a “Big Tech Monopoly Tax”.

It argues that “the matter in question is not whether the resources exist, it is whether there is political will to prioritise climate change”.

Bolivian negotiator Diego Pacheco, who often speaks for the influential Like-Minded Developing Countries group, told Climate Home that rich countries were trying to pass their responsibility to provide climate finance onto the private sector and development banks that mainly offer loans.

“The [argument of a] lack of public finance is not true,” he said. “There is a lot of finance available and political will is lacking.”

He suggested that developed countries should shift military budgets towards tackling climate change or tax luxury products “because luxurious patterns of consumption are also a driver of the climate crisis”.

Innovative sources

Referring to the document in talks on the new finance goal yesterday, Saudi Arabia’s negotiator justified a tax on arms manufacturers by saying that military emissions of planet-heating gases represent 5% of global historical emissions.

“One… potential idea is to have a tax on defence companies in developed countries,” he said, suggesting it could be put forward. “We also realise that a financial transaction tax can actually generate a lot of revenue as well.”

At the COP28 climate summit last November, France and Kenya launched a taskforce to look into innovative levies that could raise money for climate action. They said they planned to examine taxes on international shipping – which has already agreed to introduce one – aviation, fossil fuels and financial transactions but did not refer to fashion, technology or defence companies.

Global brands targeted

According to the document, a financial transaction tax would raise about $240 billion a year over a decade through a 0.5% tax on trades, 0.1% on bonds and 0.005% on derivatives “only for Wall Street”.

About $57 billion a year could be raised from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the top seven technology firms, it says. Those would include Amazon, Apple and Google. “The ‘Big Tech’ firms hold a global monopoly on technologies, upon which developing countries have been reliant,” the paper argues.

About $34 billion a year could come from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the roughly 80 top fashion firms in developed countries, it says. This would hit brands like Louis Vuitton, Dior and Nike.

The G77+China group adds that the fashion sector comes behind only fossil fuels and agriculture in the size of its emissions – “however, unlike fossil fuels and agriculture, high-end brands are not critical for food and energy security”.

Around $21 billion a year could come from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the top 80 defense firms in developed countries, the paper says. This would include US firms like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, the UK’s BAE Systems and France’s Thales.

All these measures would result in finance flows mainly from developed to developing countries, the document notes, except for the technology tax where “flows would be mixed as consumer[s] would shoulder the cost”.

Quality – not just quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal

Pacheco said the proposals originated within the Arab Group, before winning support from the wider G77+China group. Developed countries have yet to publicly respond to the ideas.

Under the UN climate change process, the group of developed countries defined back in 1992 have so far had the sole responsibility to provide climate finance to developing nations.

Developed-country governments are now pushing hard to change this, so that wealthier and high-emitting developing countries like Saudi Arabia would also contribute towards the new post-2025 finance goal.

This is one of the divisive issues government negotiators will wrangle over this week and next in Bonn to prepare the ground for an expected agreement on the finance goal at COP29 in Baku in November.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a speech to mark World Environment Day at the American Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, he said that “many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action – with lobbying, legal threats and massive ad campaigns”.

“I urge every country to ban advertising from fossil fuel companies,” he said on Wednesday, adding that many governments already ban or restrict tobacco advertising – and that “some are now doing the same with fossil fuels”.

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

In 2022, France banned adverts for some fossil fuel products, and similar laws are being discussed in Canada and Ireland. The Dutch city of Amsterdam has banned fossil fuel adverts and the Scottish capital Edinburgh is set to do the same.

Guterres described the fossil fuel industry as “the Godfathers of climate chaos”, raking in record profits and feasting off trillions in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Meanwhile the oil and gas industry last year invested “a measly 2.5 percent” of its total capital spending on clean energy, he added.

“Mad Men fuelling madness”

The UN Secretary-General said fossil fuel companies “have been aided and abetted by advertising and [public relations] companies, Mad Men – remember the TV series – fuelling the madness”.

He called on them to “stop acting as enablers to planetary destruction” by refusing new fossil fuel clients and setting out plans to drop existing ones.

According to sector campaign group Clean Creatives, nearly 300 advertising and PR agencies held contracts with fossil fuel firms between 2022 and 2023.

Subsidiaries of the British company WPP had the highest number of fossil fuel contracts – 55 – despite having a pledge to reach net zero by 2030. Their clients include oil and gas giants Saudi Aramco, Equinor and BP.

On the other hand, more than 1,100 organisations in advertising and publicity have pledged to cut ties with fossil fuel companies and decline any contracts with them in future.

Clean Creatives executive director Duncan Meisel said Guterres’ speech was “a turning point in the advertising and PR industry’s relationship with climate change and fossil fuels”.

“There is no longer any cover for agencies to say that they are doing the right thing when working with polluters,” he said. “Everyone knows this is wrong, and everyone needs to act.”

Don’t take ads

Guterres also said that news media and technology companies should stop taking fossil fuel advertising.

Internal documents from fossil fuel firms like BP have shown that they consider placing sponsored content in the news media as a deliberate and effective strategy for influencing both public opinion and energy policy.

Research by investigative website DeSmog and Drilled showed that in-house advertising teams at international media outlets like Reuters, Bloomberg, The Financial Times and The New York Times facilitated this strategy, by promoting fossil fuel companies’ messaging through sponsored content like podcasts, newsletters and videos.

In April, The Financial Times and Reuters pulled content sponsored by Saudi Aramco that showcased the state-run oil company’s preference for technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

DC political journalism is drowning in oil.@PunchbowlNews presented by @Chevron @axios Generate sponsored by @Chevron@politico Power Switch presented by @bp_America pic.twitter.com/9XfD3ifO7y

— Brad Johnson SUBSCRIBE TO HILLHEAT.NEWS (@climatebrad) November 13, 2023

As well as sponsoring content, fossil fuel companies take out regular adverts in mainstream and specialist media. For example, Chevron sponsors Politico’s energy podcast.

Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, received around $4 million from fossil fuel firms in return for running adverts spreading false claims over the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, according to research from Climate Action Against Disinformation.

Hottest May ever

Guterres’ speech was scheduled to coincide with World Environment Day on June 5 – also the day, he pointed out, that May 2024 was confirmed as the hottest May in recorded history

“This marks twelve straight months of the hottest months ever,” the UN chief said. “For the past year, every turn of the calendar has turned up the heat. Our planet is trying to tell us something. But we don’t seem to be listening.”

On the same day, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said there is an 80% chance that one of the next five years will be 1.5C hotter than pre-industrial times. In 2015, that chance was estimated at close to zero.

In the Paris Agreement adopted that year, all governments agreed to strive to limit global temperature increase to 1.5C “recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”.

Mexico elects a climate scientist as president – but will politics temper her green ambition?

“WMO is sounding the alarm that we will be exceeding the 1.5C level on a temporary basis with increasing frequency,” WMO Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett said in a statement on Wednesday.

“However, it is important to stress that temporary breaches do not mean that the 1.5C goal is permanently lost because this refers to long-term warming over decades,” she added.

The WMO also said there is a close to 50% likelihood that the global temperature averaged over the five years from 2024-2028 will exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial era.

The UN decided to combine its scientific and advocacy powers on World Environment Day in a bid to push climate change back up the global political agenda, which has been dominated by conflicts and major elections this year.

The aim is to increase pressure on the richest nations ahead of the G7 summit this month – and on all governments tasked with preparing new climate action plans – to urgently step up their efforts to cut emissions.

“The battle for 1.5 degrees will be won or lost in the 2020s – under the watch of leaders today”, said Guterres.

(Reporting by Joe Lo and Daisy Clague; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post UN chief calls on governments to ban fossil fuel ads appeared first on Climate Home News.

Calling climate finance the “great enabler of climate action”, Simon Stiell told negotiators at the start of the annual June session in the city of Bonn that they must come up with concrete options for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on finance.

The goal is one of the main decisions expected from the COP29 UN climate summit in November in Azerbaijan’s capital.

“We cannot afford to reach Baku with too much work to do. So please, make every hour here count,” Stiell said on Monday in his opening speech to the June 3-13 conference.

Following delays caused by an unauthorised pro-Palestinian protest and a complaint from the Russian delegation that not all its members had received visas to travel to Germany, government negotiating blocs made statements revealing sharp divisions on who should provide climate finance and how much it should be.

South African & Argentinian climate justice activists Tasneem Essop & Anabella Rosemberg were removed & de-badged after peacefully demonstrating (standing & singing) to alert to the unfolding genocide in Palestine at @UNFCCC #BonnClimateConference opening plenary. pic.twitter.com/xUWXY8dilU

— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel_tweets) June 3, 2024

While developing countries have repeatedly called for the current $100 billion-a-year goal to be replaced with “trillions”, developed nations have yet to propose any numbers for the target.

Several developing countries said that at least the bulk of the money should come from developed-country governments, whose responsibility it has been so far under the UN climate regime.

Developed countries, in turn, said some of it should come from the private sector and global taxes on carbon-heavy goods, as well as from the public purses of wealthier, higher-polluting developing countries.

Other divides that need to be resolved by November include a common definition of climate finance, the period the new goal should be set for, how funding flows should be monitored, and what the money should be spent on.

A longstanding target to provide $100 billion annually from 2020 was met only in 2022, according to the Organisation for Economic Coopreation and Development (OECD), two years later than the deadline developed countries agreed to back in 2009.

Mexico elects a climate scientist as president – but will politics temper her green ambition?

Diego Pacheco, a negotiator from Bolivia, told the room in Bonn that the level of ambition on the new finance goal will affect developing countries’ level of ambition in their UN climate action plans – which all nations are supposed to publish by early next year. The NCQG will determine “how words translate into actions”, he said.

Billions to trillions

To date, very few governments have made precise demands on a top-line amount for the new goal – although all have agreed it will be set from a floor of $100 billion a year.

India and the Arab group of countries, led by Saudi Arabia, have said rich countries should provide at least $1 trillion a year, while other developing country governments have repeatedly pointed to needs reaching into the “trillions”.

At a press conference in Bonn, Michai Robertson, the lead finance negotiator for small island states, warned: “The cost of inaction if we don’t spend those trillions just far exceeds the seed money we’re putting in”. War and conflict “get trillions already”, he added.

He added that many developing countries have not yet specified a precise amount as they are doing modelling and waiting for a UN “needs determination report” which is due out in October, ahead of COP29.

On beaches of Gaza and Tel Aviv, two tales of one heatwave

In their speeches, neither the European Union or Canada gave any sense of how large the target should be.

Iskander Erzini Vernoit, founder of a Moroccan think-tank called the Imal Initiative, told journalists that developed countries have not been willing to enter into discussions about how much the goal should be.

Wide or narrow sources

Vernoit said the only dimension rich nations have been willing to discuss so far is “their proposal entailing money coming from sources other than themselves”.

The EU’s delegate said in Bonn that the money should come from “a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels including innovative sources while making all financial flows consistent with the Paris Agreement”.

“While we attach great importance to the public core of the new goal, public resources alone will not suffice,” the EU negotiator said.

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

“Innovative sources” refers to a variety of money-raising proposals such as taxing billionaires, shipping emissions, planes and financial transactions. A French and Kenyan-led taskforce is currently examining these options.

Developed countries, including those in the EU, have highlighted Article 2.1c of the 2015 Paris Agreement on making finance flows, including private finance, consistent with tackling climate change. They are also pushing to widen the pool of government donors.

The EU negotiator added in Bonn that “the provision and mobilisation of climate finance should be a global effort, reflecting solidarity – notably with the most vulnerable countries and communities, and capturing the evolved global circumstances and the dynamic nature of economic capabilities”.

Developed countries have argued that, since developed and developing countries were last categorised by the UN in 1992, some developing nations have grown much richer and more polluting – and should therefore contribute to climate finance not receive it. China, the Gulf nations and South Korea are among the most prominent examples.

Speaking on behalf of a negotiating group that includes the US, Japan, the UK and Australia, Canada's negotiator said the new goal must be "multi-layered and incorporate all sources of finance - public and private, domestic and international - it should draw from the efforts of a broad set of contributors that reflects economic realities and capabilities".

However, speaking on behalf of the biggest group of developing countries, Uganda stressed the responsibility lies with the traditional set of developed countries.

Speaking through a translator on behalf of the Arab Group, Saudi Arabia's negotiator said the new goal must reflect "the responsibilities of advanced countries" based on the rules of the Paris Agreement.

Brazil's negotiator said public finance should be "at the very core" of the goal, and that climate finance should be defined so there is transparency and accountability on whether it has been provided as promised.

The OECD - a club of wealthy nations that last week announced the $100-billion target had been met - "does not have multilateral legitimacy" to make such judgements, she added.

The great COP food systems illusion: UN climate talks deliver no real-world action

Referring to the OECD announcement, Bolivia's Pacheco said: "We see much exaltation in delivery of climate finance in the form of loans at market rates".

Over two-thirds of the climate finance recorded by the OECD came in the form of loans. Of the loans provided directly by governments, about one-fifth was offered at market rates, while nearly three-quarters of loans from multilateral development banks were categorised as non-concessional but still carrying better terms than commercial lenders.

Vernoit warned that developed countries were likely to get their way at the talks in Bonn unless the public - through civil society groups - raised "moral indignation about how the conversation is going".

"This is not a response to an emergency, it is not a response to any moral responsibility," he said.

(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling)

The post “Great enabler of climate action” – UN urges Bonn progress on new finance goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

But not everyone has been affected equally, as Climate Home found out when speaking to people living by the Mediterranean Sea, just an hour or two’s drive apart. The Israeli city of Tel Aviv has been largely unscathed by the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, while Gaza’s urban areas have been bombed heavily, forcing most residents to flee Israeli attacks.

Climate Home spoke to two Palestinian fathers, now living in Gazan refugee camps in Rafah and Deir al-Balah, who have lost children to the recent heatwave. Both had fled their homes before their children died and are living with their surviving families in makeshift wood and nylon tents, fanning themselves with plastic food containers for ventilation.

Boys carry water bottles in Gaza on May 28, 2024. (Photo: Naaman Omar)

Meanwhile, just to the north, on the beach-side promenade of Tel Aviv, Israeli locals told Climate Home they had waited out the heatwave in air-conditioned apartments. Their main concerns were the cost of cooling, the strain it places on the country’s electric grid and drooping house plants.

Not just temperatures

Friederike Otto is one of the scientists who worked on a study issued by the World Weather Attribution group which found that climate change made the April heatwave in the Middle East five times more likely.

She told a press briefing that heatwaves are “not just about the temperatures – it’s what these temperatures mean to people”.

Asked separately about Gaza, she told Climate Home: “If you don’t have access to water, if you don’t have access to shade, if you don’t have access to medication – the extreme heat just compounds so much the challenges that these people are already facing.”

The Gaza Strip, one of two Palestinian territories, is just 25 miles long and about five miles wide. Since a bloody attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians on October 7, the Israeli military has repeatedly bombed and invaded Gaza, killing over 35,000 people.

The attacks have caused 1.9 million people, nearly 85% of the Gazan population, to flee their homes. While air conditioning, electricity and clean water have long been scarcer in Gaza than Israel, the current conflict has worsened that inequality, development agencies have said.

Greenhouse tents

Many refugees are living in nylon tents. Without walls, fans or air conditioning, they told Climate Home they are battling heat by using expensive water to shower as often as they can and stripping children – nearly half of the region’s population – to their underwear.

“It is like living in a green house, and no one can tolerate living inside.”

We are just at the beginning of summer, and the temperatures are already unbearable in #Gaza

Access to fresh water is very limited, making hot weather an even bigger health threat#CeasefireNow pic.twitter.com/6Qtln9XPD0

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) April 25, 2024

Hilmi Basal, 41, and his wife and six children left their home in northern Gaza after Israeli warnings. They fled south, buying a makeshift tent to live in the Deir al-Balah refugee camp. On April 26, Basal said, his three-year-old son fell suddenly to the ground and entered a coma. Five days later, he was pronounced dead in the local hospital.

Basal told Climate Home he “lives a difficult life” after losing his child, feeling “despair, frustration and fear of losing more children”. He said the tents are like greenhouses, so his family spend their days outside, preferably at the seashore where they can swim and shower. 

He and his wife dress their five surviving children in only their undergarments and search for water to cool down. A 20-litre bottle of drinking water costs $1.50, which Basal says “is an amount that many families suffering from extreme poverty do not have”. 

A boy sits in a bombed-out area of the Rafah refugee camp after an attack by Israeli bombers in Gaza – May 27, 2024 (Photo: Hashem Zimmo/TheNews2/Cover Imag)

Ribhi Abu Salem, 39, also lost a child to the heatwave. The three-year-old fainted suddenly while he was inside the family’s tent and died at the hospital. Doctors said the cause of the death was direct exposure to sunlight.

Until Israel’s attack, the family lived in an air-conditioned house in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza. This was built for Palestinians fleeing what they call the Nakba (meaning “catastrophe”) in 1948, when Zionist paramilitaries violently removed Palestinians from the newly-declared Israeli state.

Advised by the Israeli government to leave northern Gaza, Salem’s family fled south to the city of Rafah, where they sheltered in a tent. “Despite the scarcity of water, many tent residents resorted to buying large quantities of water to shower more than five times during the day,” Salem said.

After his family left, the Israeli government bombed their home, leaving them with nowhere to return to when the conflict ends. On May 6, Israeli forces began attacking Rafah and have since killed dozens of people sheltering there.

“It’s difficult to convey the scale of the humanitarian situation in Rafah. In every direction you look there are makeshift shelters.”@UNWateridge describes the sense of loss & fear people face in #Gaza as they look for water, food & safety.

Nowhere is safe in the #GazaStrip pic.twitter.com/OpH2YV7avk

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) April 25, 2024

For those with homes still standing, the usefulness of air conditioning and fans has been hindered by Israel’s blocking of fuel supplies to Gaza’s only power plant, leading to shortages of electricity. Solar panels continue to provide power for some, although they are also vulnerable to destruction by Israeli weapons.

AC the key

Across the border, Israelis are coping much better with the heatwave. Although the emergency services say 147 people have been treated for dehydration, fainting or heatstroke, none have been reported dead from the extreme heat.

When Climate Home visited Tel Aviv’s seaside promenade last week, beach-goers were sitting under umbrellas or stretched out on lawns listening to Spanish music blaring from a bar advertising frozen margaritas.

The beach in Tel Aviv on May 23, 2024 (Photo: Jessica Buxbaum)

Twenty-somethings Noam Sophia Samet and Tal Danon spoke to Climate Home still wet from a dip in the Mediterranean Sea. Both said they use air conditioning all the time. “It’s expensive but it’s worth it,” said Samet.

Timna Lalach, 70, said last month’s heatwave didn’t affect her, as she stayed inside her cooled apartment all day. Thirty-nine year old Anna Tarkovsky said she too stayed inside with the air conditioning on – the only problem was her plants died, she added.

Black-outs

While Gazans lack air conditioners, Israel’s main issue is that there are too many for its coal and gas-powered electricity grid to handle peaks in demand when residents all turn their cooling equipment on at the same time, 

During a heatwave last June, Israeli energy authorities imposed rolling black-outs. Last month, Samet and Danon’s electricity cut out once for a few hours while they were trying to work. 

Avner Gross, an environmental science professor at Ben Gurion University, said the Israeli government should plan better for hot days, with measures to store electricity or manage demand for it. “We need to be prepared and we are not even close,” he said.

Both Israel’s national government and Tel Aviv’s authorities want to expand vegetation cover and plant trees to provide shade. Tel Aviv is a member of the ‘cool cities’ network, which aims to tackle urban heatwaves.

Ficus trees provide shade on Dafna Street in Tel Aviv in 2017 (Photos: Avishai Teicher)

But Gaza, and the other Palestinian areas in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, are much further away from becoming more resilient to the same unbearably high temperatures.

The World Bank estimates that rebuilding the Gazan homes destroyed as of January this year will cost $13 billion. Far more have since been razed – and water, health and electrical infrastructure also needs to be restored.

The predicament of Gazans forced to endure sweltering conditions in ill-equipped tents is not an isolated problem. Across the world, climate change and war are forcing more and more people out of their homes and into makeshift camps. More than 75 million people are currently displaced inside their own countries – 50% more than five years ago.

The World Weather Attribution study notes that the recent heatwave made already precarious conditions for internally displaced people and conflict victims worse.

“With limited institutional support and options to adapt, the heat increases health risks and hardship,” the scientists wrote.

(Reporting by Taghreed Ali, Jessica Buxbaum and Joe Lo; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post On beaches of Gaza and Tel Aviv, two tales of one heatwave appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a statement, a gathering of EU ministers called the Council of the EU said the decision “unlocked the process of modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) for its non-EU contracting parties”.

The compromise allows the EU as a body to withdraw from the treaty, while individual EU member states can stay in and approve the green reforms at a conference due to take place this year, if they wish.

The ECT currently allows all energy companies – including coal, oil and gas firms – to sue governments over climate and other policies they see as a threat to their current and future profits.

The proposed reforms to modernise the ECT, which are due to be voted on in November, would make it easier for ECT countries to prevent the treaty being used as a basis for lawsuits involving fossil fuel assets that are affected by green economy measures.

However, with several European countries already filing their notice to leave the ECT, it is unclear whether a sufficient number of EU states will stay in the treaty long enough to get the reforms approved. As part of today’s EU Council agreement, the EU confirmed it would leave the treaty.

Other ECT member states, including Japan and Kazakhstan, only grudgingly agreed to back the reforms under pressure from the European Commission.

For the ECT “modernisation” proposal to be adopted, none of the treaty’s member governments – now numbering 49 – must vote against it at November’s conference. Then three-quarters of ECT members need to ratify the reforms for them to take effect.

If the reforms fail, the ECT’s members across Europe and Asia will be unable to remove its protection for fossil fuel investments and – due to a 20-year sunset clause – even EU countries that have left would be exposed to lawsuits for that period.

Post-Soviet treaty

The ECT was conceived in the 1990s to boost investment flows between Western and post-Soviet countries. But its provisions to deter states from grabbing private assets have since been used by energy companies to fight back against climate policies.

In 2020, a British oil and gas company sued Slovenia over what it called “unreasonable” environmental protections”, while German energy company Uniper threatened to sue the Dutch government for €1 billion ($1.1bn)  over its coal phase-out plans.

In lawsuits brought under the ECT last November, British oil company Kelsch is suing the EU, Germany and Denmark for at least 95 million euros ($102m) over a windfall tax on energy firms.

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

The European Commission reacted to these and other cases by attempting to remove fossil fuels from the list of investments protected by the ECT – with the aim that it would apply only to clean energy assets.

For two years, efforts by EU negotiators were repeatedly blocked by Japan and Kazakhstan. But in June 2022, a “flexibility mechanism” was agreed that would allow ECT states to end protection for fossil fuels, as long as no other ECT state objected.

Europe divided

Despite European Commission negotiators finally winning this right, EU member countries were divided on how to apply it.

Governments like France, Spain and Luxembourg wanted to immediately end protection for fossil fuel investments but faced push-back from several Eastern European countries.

They agreed a compromise to stop protection for new fossil fuel investments but to continue it for existing investments for ten years – a decision that angered climate campaigners.

Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund

Friends of the Earth’s Paul de Clerck said at the time it would “lock the EU in fossil fuel investment protection” for a decade.

Despite this agreement, by the time the annual ECT conference came around in November 2022, EU governments no longer unanimously backed the reforms the European Commission had negotiated, and so they were shelved.

Locking in Asian fossil fuels

The EU’s stalling on the reforms drew an angry response from then head of the ECT secretariat, Guy Lentz of Luxembourg.

In a letter to the leader of the European Parliament in February 2023, he warned that if the EU withdrew as a bloc before approving the modernisation, it would amount to “an express prohibition” for other ECT members to better align with the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

He added that failure to agree reforms would essentially allow fossil fuel companies to sue EU states for longer because of an existing 20-year sunset clause, which means energy companies can bring lawsuits against governments for two decades even after a country leaves the treaty.

EU states wanted to neutralise this sunset clause by agreeing a side deal between themselves not to apply the treaty. But Lentz said these attempts “may not provide the expected legal certainty”. Campaigners accused him of “bluffing”.

Numbers game

EU countries then continued to debate among themselves whether to stay in or leave the ECT and – if they withdrew – whether to modernise it before exiting.

Despite the ongoing talks, France, Germany and Poland officially left the ECT in December 2023. Luxembourg and Slovenia will leave in June and October 2024 respectively. Portugal, the UK, Spain and the EU will leave next year.

This debate was resolved today, with EU states’ ministers agreeing to a compromise, brokered by the Belgian government. Governments that want to can stay and support the modernisation, but the EU itself can start process of exiting right away.

Belgian energy minister Tinne Van der Straeten said her government had “worked tirelessly to break this complex deadlock and found a balance acceptable and useful to all”.

The deal essentially makes the reforms contingent on timing and EU countries’ commitment to reform.

By November, after Luxembourg and Slovenia exit, there will be 47 ECT member states, including 22 from the EU. Eleven more – including the United Kingdom and Switzerland – are in Europe but not in the EU. Nine others are in Central Asia and three in the Middle East, with Japan and Mongolia the remaining two.

E3G analyst Eunjung Lee said ECT modernisation “is still uncertain” but added “with the EU Council decision today, it is probable that the modernisation might pass, particularly if the voting takes place via correspondence”.  

The ECT approved this option in October 2022. It means the conference’s chair sets a deadline by which any objections should be sent in.

“This will make things easier than voting at a conference, because unless there is a clear objection, the modernisation will be adopted”.

But even if the reform is approved, Lee said the ratification by three-quarters of countries “could take forever”.

De Clerck of Friends of the Earth agreed, saying “it is unclear if the reform would ever be ratified”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Despite exit, EU seeks to save green reforms to energy investment treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Biden administration has laid out for the first time a set of principles that attempt to define how “high-integrity” carbon credits can play “a meaningful role” in helping cut greenhouse gas emissions and channelling “a significant amount of private capital” to combat climate change.

A 12-page policy document released by the US government on Tuesday includes provisions to ensure that carbon credit projects deliver real emission reductions, avoid harming local communities and encourage companies to decarbonise their own operations before buying offsets.

But it also recommends that businesses should be allowed to use carbon credits to cancel out some of the emissions generated by their suppliers and customers, known as “Scope 3”. A similar move by the board of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a leading arbiter of corporate net zero plans, sparked a major backlash from staff last month.

The US government guidelines are neither binding nor enforceable. However, proponents hope they will reinforce a number of ongoing initiatives led by carbon credit developers, buyers and green groups to raise standards and boost the role of carbon markets in climate and nature protection.

Troubled market

Polluting companies, including major fossil fuel producers and airlines, spent an estimated $1.7 billion last year on voluntary carbon offsets meant to compensate their direct emissions by funding climate-friendly activities elsewhere, such as planting trees or rolling out renewable energy sources.  

But a series of revelations questioning the environmental and social benefits claimed by some developers and users of carbon credits have dented confidence in the market.

As South Africa heads to the polls, voters await stalled “just energy transition”

Scientific studies and investigative reports – including by Climate Home – have found that a growing number of projects failed to deliver the emission reductions promised. NGOs have also denounced instances of human rights abuse and environmental damage caused by carbon-offsetting activities.

“Voluntary carbon markets are a huge distraction and a waste of time and resources,” said Mohamed Adow, the Nairobi-based founder of the Power Shift Africa think-tank. “It’s sad to see politicians in the Global North desperately trying to find any way they can to avoid actually just cutting their carbon emissions,” he added.

Every tool needed

In its announcement, the US government acknowledged the shortcomings in voluntary carbon markets (VCMs), saying that “in too many instances” credits do not live up to the high standards required.

“For good reasons a lot of folks outside this room are skeptical,” National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi told attendees at the policy launch in Washington. “[They are] scared off by news stories of things that went wrong and gloss of greenwash.”

US National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi speaks during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 26, 2024. REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson

But, he added, that should not be seen as “an excuse to slow down but as an occasion to speed up” and do things better.

The Biden administration wants to be a leader in guiding “the development of VCMs toward high-quality and high-efficacy decarbonization actions”, the White House said. Its principles closely align with those of industry-led governance bodies that are trying to revamp the carbon market.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) is currently assessing project methodologies as part of its efforts to establish the first independent global benchmark for “high-integrity” carbon offsets, known as the “Core Carbon Principles”.

“We are in a climate emergency and we need every tool in the box to meet the 1.5°C [global warming] target,” said ICVCM Council Chair Annette Nazareth. “High-integrity carbon credits can mobilise private finance at scale for projects to reduce and remove billions of tonnes of emissions that would not otherwise be viable.”

Substitute for government aid

As most of the world’s largest carbon offsetting projects are based in the Global South, many rich governments view the market favourably as a way of getting dollars to developing nations without tapping into public budgets.

That is the case in the US where climate funding has fallen victim to political polarisation. President Joe Biden promised to increase international climate finance to over $11.4 billion per year by 2024. But Congress approved only a fraction of that as part of this year’s government budget: $1 billion of a spending package totalling $1.59 trillion.

In Malawi, dubious cyclone aid highlights need for loss and damage fund

The White House’s Zaidi said voluntary carbon markets can move “mountains of capital” if their integrity is improved. Better regulation could expand the market from its current size of around $1.7 billion to $1.1 trillion by 2050, according to predictions by BloombergNEF. 

Gilles Dufrasne, global policy lead at Carbon Market Watch, told Climate Home the US government will need to “walk the talk and ensure that its promises of transparency and integrity are followed up by actions”.

“There is currently no public data to measure how much finance is flowing to climate action through carbon credits and how much is staying in the pockets of Global North intermediaries and consultants,” he added.

International negotiations

The US government is also a strong proponent of private sector-led carbon credit initiatives in international climate circles.

In discussions at the COP28 climate summit last year on setting the rules for a new carbon market governed by the United Nations, Washington championed what observers described as a “light-touch, no-frills” approach that could hand a prominent role to private-sector players from the voluntary market.

The move was rejected by the European Union, causing a breakdown in the negotiations, which will resume at the mid-year UN climate talks in Bonn starting next week.

“By undermining the multilateral process … and placing more faith in private sector-governed voluntary carbon markets, the US appears to be shirking its responsibilities for financing climate action and offloading them onto the private sector,” said Trishant Dev, a carbon market expert at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini and Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post US government backs the carbon credit industry’s push to fix itself appeared first on Climate Home News.

A few months later, the US government accused Mmobuosi of fraud over his business dealings. Climate Home News visited Mchenga this month and found the new homes have cracks in the walls and floors, with residents scared they will collapse.

Emma Jeremia, a pregnant woman living in one house, said it would have been better to die in the storm than be killed by her house collapsing on her. Simon Mweyeli, who liaised with the Red Cross on behalf of Mchenga’s residents, said the homes can “fall anytime”.

This unsafe housing for cyclone survivors in Malawi, funded by a suspected fraudster, shows why governments need to get the new UN loss and damage fund up and running with decent resources and quality control, climate campaigners told Climate Home.

Cracks in the wall inside one of the homes in Mchenga, Malawi, pictured on May 8, 2024 (Photo: Raphael Mweninguwe)

International climate justice activists said the local testimonies show why funding for disaster victims should come from the governments that have predominantly caused the climate crisis rather than unaccountable benefactors – and recommended that affected people should be involved in designing and building their new homes.

After last year’s devastating cyclone – with the loss and damage fund not yet up and running – the cash-strapped Malawian government went looking for financial help around the world. According to national media, ex-president Bakili Muluzi recruited Nigerian businessman Dozy Mmobuosi.

The day after promising to build the homes – and the same day he was accused by short-selling firm Hindenburg Research of operating a scam company – Mmobuosi received a Malawian diplomatic passport, which is usually reserved for senior politicians, national media reported.

“Such instances highlight why we need a loss and damage fund that empowers affected communities to lead recovery and reconstruction efforts, and not allow politicians or corporations to further their own interests,” said Harjeet Singh, a climate activist who has long advocated for the fund.

In 2022, governments finally agreed at the COP27 climate talks to set up such a fund to channel money from wealthy nations to people in developing countries who have been harmed by climate change. The fund’s board hopes it can start distributing money next year.

Cyclone Freddy strikes

In March last year, Cyclone Freddy travelled from the west coast of Australia across the Indian Ocean over Madagascar and into southern Africa, where it caused floods and mudslides that killed more than 1,000 people in Malawi.

The village of Mchenga, in Malawi’s southern Phalombe district, was among the worst-hit. Its 72-year-old headman Laften Nangazi told Climate Home that 80 people died there in a single day.

He said he saw men, women and children being swept away in despair. “I cried when I saw children dying,” he said, “I saw about 40 people in a tree, and they were there for three days waiting for the water levels to go down.”

When the waters eventually receded, 176 of the village’s families were left homeless – a problem repeated across the country’s south.

Hendry Keinga reacts after he lost a family member during the Mtauchira village mudslide in the aftermath of Cyclone Freddy in Blantyre, Malawi, March 16, 2023. (REUTERS/Esa Alexander)

Looking for funds

Malawi is the world’s tenth poorest country, so government money to rebuild housing was scarce. The international fund for loss and damage, meant to address disasters like this, had just been agreed at COP27 but was not yet up and running.

President Lazarus Chakwera invited his three living predecessors for a meeting. Two of them – Bakili Muluzi and Joyce Banda – showed up and were made “Goodwill Ambassadors of Tropical Cyclone Freddy”, national media reported.

Muluzi’s son Atupele told Climate Home that his father and Banda tried to access finance “to support the very real costs to the country for housing, social infrastructure, agriculture and industry as we try to rebuild in a resilient manner”.

“Of course, the global economy and international politics means that this is a challenging task in the midst of the chaos, conflict and climate impact everywhere in the world,” he added.

To meet this challenge, Bakili Muluzi turned to Mmobuosi, a Nigerian businessman and founder of mobile banking company Tingo Group, who was then in the news for trying to take over English football club Sheffield United.

Twitter

Controversial Nigerian tech entrepreneur Dozy Mmobuosi recently visited the country to participate in the launch of a Cyclone Freddy relief project in Phalombe, an event supported by former Presidents Bakili Muluzi and Joyce Banda. pic.twitter.com/w1WlzANAKM

— Platform for Investigative Journalism – Malawi (@PlatformMalawi) June 15, 2023

On June 6, Mmobuosi, Muluzi and Banda travelled to Mchenga to launch construction work on new houses, posing with a foundation stone bearing their names. On Facebook, Banda said the houses “will be made possible because of a generous contribution” from Mmobuosi, who she called “a distinguished son of Africa” and “good friend” of Muluzi.

The next day, according to the Platform for Investigative Journalism, Mmobuosi met with Muluzi and President Chakwera at the president’s home. The Nigerian was unusually quickly granted a diplomatic passport, usually reserved for top Malawian politicians and their spouses.

“Exceptionally obvious scam”

But on the same day Mmobusi was in Mchenga, Hindenburg Research, which specialises in “forensic financial research”, accused his Tingo Group – which says it provides mobile banking to farmers – of being “an exceptionally obvious scam with completely fabricated financials”.

Hindenburg was short-selling Tingo Group shares, so it stood to profit if the share price of the firm – listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange in the US – went down.

Hindenburg accused Mmobuosi of inventing much of his backstory, of settling out of court with Nigerian authorities over alleged bad cheques in 2017, of photo-shopping Tingo logos onto planes to claim the company had an airline, and generally exaggerating the company’s assets.

While Muluzi stood by him, in December 2023 the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sided with Hindenburg. They accused Mmobuosi of a “staggering” fraud against Tingo’s investors.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

The SEC’s 72-page complaint included images of what it said was a real and an edited Tingo bank statement. The edited one had several zeros added to the balance.

US authorities charged Mmobuosi with security fraud and froze his assets. His whereabouts are reportedly unknown. If found guilty, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

On October 6 – after Hindenburg’s complaint but before the SEC’s – Muluzi and Mmobuosi went back to Mchenga village in Malawi to hand over the first batch of 17 houses.

Muluzi thanked Mmobuosi for the funding and said he had “committed to buy beds, mattresses and furniture for the households and also to bring solar electricity to the area”. In December, another 28 houses were handed over.

@MalawiRedCross has today handed over 45 houses to beneficiaries of T/A Phweremwe in Phalombe, that have been constructed with funding from The Dozy Mmobuosi Foundation through Goodwill Ambassador on TC Freddy Former President Dr Bakili Muluzi. pic.twitter.com/hVhOYdScjS

— Malawi Red Cross Society (@MalawiRedCross) December 19, 2023

Cracks and missing crockery

But five months on, when Climate Home visited the village, residents complained the homes were too few, dangerous and small, adding they had not yet received the promised furniture or solar power.

Jeremia said her father was given one of the houses but she sleeps in it instead. “He and my mother and my other siblings are living in a rented house. They cannot stay in a house that is threatening their lives. After all, it’s also a very small house to accommodate all of us,” she said.

Mweyeli, the chair of the village civil protection committee, said most new homes are “showing cracks – a sign that these houses are of sub-standard”. He said the first 17 homes were built with 45 bags of cement, but the later 28 were built with just 28 bags, making them weak and liable to fall down.

He demonstrated how the floors were made of sand covered by plastic with a “thin layer of cement which is now showing cracks all over”.

Simon Mweyeli shows cracks in the floor of one of the houses, which he said were sand covered by plastic and a thin cement layer

Charles Macheso, who climbed a mango tree to save himself from the cyclone but lost all his possessions, said village coordinators told the Malawi Red Cross that more cement was needed. But, he said, the Red Cross officers “were so defensive”. Mweyeli said he called the Red Cross to report the cracks and the aid organisation came to take pictures.

Charles Macheso in Mchenga village on May 8, 2024 (Photo: Raphael Mweninguwe)

Asked about these houses, the Malawi Red Cross’s communications specialist in the capital Lilongwe, Felix Washon, initially told Climate Home to go see them, and then hung up the phone without answering further questions.

“Not aware”

After a two-day journey from Lilongwe to the village, Climate Home contacted Washon again and was told by email that “we are not aware of any report about cracking of houses in Phalombe [the district that covers Mchenga]”.

Washon later said the Red Cross had a contract to build the homes with Muluzi rather than Mmobuosi. “We never received any money from Dozy [Mmobuosi] – direct from Dozy,” he said by phone. “Malawi Red Cross Society has no other links or contracts with Dozy,” he added.

Climate Home News emailed the contact address listed on the Dozy Mmobuosi Foundation’s website, but the email bounced.

Mmobuosi told Arise News in February that he was “taken aback” and “shocked” by the SEC’s allegations about Tingo Group. He said he had not run Tingo directly for seven years, adding that his lawyers were “on top of” responding to the SEC charges and that Tingo was conducting its own internal investigation. Mmobuosi is not currently listed as a member of the company’s board of directors.

In Mchenga, village headman Nangazi told Climate Home that 131 families are still without a home and called on national organisations like the Catholic Development Commission – that has provided iron sheets – to help build more accommodation.

Ida Mayilosi, 75, is one of those who missed out. “I wished I had also been assisted,” she said. “This house I am living in was built by some relatives but it took time.”

Ida Mayilosi, whose house was destroyed by Cyclone Freddy, sits in Mchenga village, May 8, 2024 (Photo: Raphael Mweninguwe)

Mattias Söderberg, climate lead for Danish charity DanChurchAid, which is currently building homes in Nepal after landslides there, said support for communities to rebuild after extreme weather that causes loss and damage “should be done so that they are more secure and robust to face the next climate-related disaster”.  “Investments which are not adapted risk being lost,” he added.

Singh – who fought to solve similar problems in India’s Andaman and Nicobar islands following the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2006 – said he had seen “firsthand how involving communities not only places them in the driving seat but also ensures accountability”.

(Reporting from Raphael Mweninguwe in Mchenga and Joe Lo in London; editing by Sebastian Rodriguez and Megan Rowling)

The post In Malawi, dubious cyclone aid highlights need for loss and damage fund appeared first on Climate Home News.

Last Wednesday and Thursday, China’s new top climate diplomat Liu Zhenmin travelled to Washington DC for two days of talks with his US counterpart John Podesta, also fresh in the job.

They discussed co-operation on climate issues, including plans for both sides to ramp up renewables, and vowed to “intensify technical and policy exchanges”.

But the day after, with Liu still in the country, the US State Department briefed journalists that Podesta had told Liu that China was producing too many solar panels and lithium-ion EV batteries.

India wants its own solar industry but has to break reliance on China first

Then on Tuesday, the White House increased tariffs on Chinese EVs, lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, accusing the Chinese government of “unfair, non-market practices” and “flooding global markets with artificially low-priced exports”.

“Clear protectionism”

In response, the state-owned China Daily newspaper in an editorial described the tariffs as “a clear act of protectionism”.

The head of the China Automobile Association Fu Bingfeng agreed, adding that “the new energy industry is jointly created by mankind and can bring common benefits to mankind”, saying the tariffs were “very unreasonable”.

Asia Society analyst Li Shuo told Climate Home that, rather than thinking of over-supply of solar panels as a problem, “it is the world’s inability to deploy these products that is the problem”.

Lithium boom: Zimbabwe looks to China to secure a place in the EV battery supply chain

The tariffs reflect “the new reality global climate politics needs to deal with” – that low-carbon products will not be made in the most cost-efficient way and distributed around the world, he explained. India also has trade barriers against Chinese solar panels, designed to boost its domestic solar manufacturing.

Research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies has found that such trade barriers can, in general, delay the competitiveness of low-carbon technologies against their market rivals – like solar against gas, or EVs against internal combustion engines.

Limited effect on solar, batteries bigger

The US-imposed measures are designed to increase the cost of Chinese goods needed for the energy transition – and could therefore slow down America’s shift away from fossil fuels.

But BloombergNEF solar analyst Jenny Chase told Climate Home that the increase in the tariff on solar cells and modules from 25% to 50% would “have little effect”.

She noted that tariffs of 25% have been in place “for ages – and as a result the US imports almost no cells or modules directly from China, instead importing from Southeast Asia”.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

The Biden administration is currently weighing whether to impose tariffs on solar imports from four Southeast Asian countries over concerns that China is routing its panels through these nations.

US solar panel manufacturers are lobbying the government in favour of those tariffs, while US solar panel installers are lobbying against them. A decision is needed by June 6, two years on from a pause on tariffs affecting the Southeast Asian nations.

Similarly, the US already imports relatively few electric vehicles from China, as it already has Trump-era tariffs on them. The US’s adoption of electric vehicles is far slower than in Europe or China.

But US car-makers do import lots of lithium-ion EV batteries for their vehicles despite existing 7.5% tariffs. China produces about three-quarters of all the world’s EV batteries, with the US producing less than a tenth.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Days after climate talks, US slaps tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels appeared first on Climate Home News.

While scientists have long recognised that vegan and vegetarian diets are far better for the climate than typical Western meat-eating ones, governments and international bodies have often shied away from explicit calls for the public to consume fewer animal products.

Experts told Climate Home that diets are an emotive issue. Western politicians and lobbyists opposed to climate action have spread disinformation about green policies that affect food, falsely claiming that governments will limit hamburgers, tax T-bones or make citizens eat low-carbon forms of protein like insects.

Shift subsidies

The bank’s new “Recipe for a Livable Planet” report outlines a “menu of solutions” governments can take to reduce their planet-warming emissions from food production, including using more renewable energy, harvesting food from trees instead of cutting them down, and restoring forests.

It calls on high-income countries, whose diets are most polluting for the planet, to take the lead by providing finance for green measures to low and middle-income nations and by shifting subsidies away from high-emitting food sources like cattle for beef. This “would reveal their full price and help make low-emission food options cheaper in comparison”, the report says.

UN agrees carbon market safeguards to tackle green land grabs

Report author William Sutton, the bank’s lead on climate-smart agriculture, told Climate Home an example of a subsidy that is “not necessarily helpful for the environment” is providing free or cheap land for grazing livestock. While Sutton declined to single out countries, the US government, for example, allows cows to graze on public land for a knock-down price.

If subsidies for meat were reduced in line with its “true cost” to the planet, prices would be 20-60% higher, Sutton said. “Allow the price of meat to more accurately reflect its true cost and let consumers decide whether that’s what they want to consume or whether they would rather consume lower-emissions, lower-cost alternatives,” he added.

Options not prescriptions

Despite its report, the World Bank is not keen to be seen telling people what to eat or arguing for veganism. “The approach that we’ve taken is not to be prescriptive – not to tell people what they should and shouldn’t do – but to provide options on what they could do if they should so choose,” Sutton said.

The report contrasts high-emitting foods like red meat and dairy with “low-emission foods like poultry or fruits or vegetables”. While poultry meat, which is mainly chicken, is much less emissions-intensive than lamb or particularly beef, it is more polluting than plant-based proteins, as the report’s data shows.

This table from the report shows that vegan diets are the lowest emissions (Screenshot/World Bank)

Sutton said that changing to a more sustainable diet “doesn’t mean eliminating meat necessarily. It could be switching from beef or lamb to something like chicken or even pork.” But, he added, people “could also switch to soy or other types of beans… That will reduce emissions even more but we don’t think it’s useful to prescribe that.”

Greenpeace EU food campaigner Sini Eräjää agreed that promoting full vegetarianism or veganism is too “black and white”. But, she added, encouraging poultry consumption gives out the wrong message. “I know that there are different kinds of calculations between different kinds of meats,” she said, but “first and foremost we need to change to more plant-based diets”.

Paul Behrens, an environmental change professor at Leiden University, agreed, telling Climate Home that chicken farms drive zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance and pollute rivers and air, while poultry feed causes deforestation.

The World Bank still has investments in the meat and dairy sector. Last year, its International Finance Corporation arm loaned $47.3m for a company to develop a pig-rearing complex in China and invested $32.6m in a Brazilian dairy producer, despite opposition from environmentalists.

Asked about this, Sutton said the organisation had to “walk the talk” and had increased its support for adapting farming to climate change and reducing its emissions.

But, he added, the bank does support some investments in livestock “after careful consideration”, if it thinks it can improve a company’s approach by increasing efficiency, cutting emissions, and providing jobs and nutritious food to the poor.

Political hot-potato

Other international bodies have avoided criticising meat too explicitly. Former officials of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have said their employers censored them when they tried to criticise livestock. Meanwhile scientists have accused the FAO of misusing their research to underplay the role that changing diets can play in cutting climate-heating emissions.

In 2021, scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faced pressure from Brazil and Argentina – two major beef and animal feed producers – to remove from a report a mention of plant-based diets and reduction of meat and dairy consumption as being good for the climate.

Edward Davey, an advisor to the Food and Land Use Coalition, said that national governments in particular “tend to be quite shy about talking about this issue because they fear the political repercussions of being perceived to be telling people what to eat”.

The US government has made no moves to reduce meat consumption but right-wing media outlets like Fox News have falsely claimed that “Biden’s climate requirements” will restrict Americans to “one burger per month”.

The Australian government likewise has no policies to curb meat-eating. But opposition politicians there have spread misinformation that the country signing up to a global methane pledge amounts to a “T-bone tax” and the end of the Australian barbeque.

We heard warnings about an end to the Aussie barbeque, a T-bone tax and so on if Australia joins 120 other countries in signing a pledge to reduce methane emissions.

But for rhetorical flourish – no one was ever going to outdo Barnaby Joyce.#Insiders #auspol pic.twitter.com/ZHYkbS0HJ2

— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) October 15, 2022

Greenpeace EU’s Eräjää said she had seen early drafts of European Commission documents that included warnings about red meat’s health impact before those warnings were stripped out of the final version. “Meat is a four-letter word,” she said.

David Powell has researched the issue for Climate Outreach, a group that specialises in communicating effectively on climate change. He said that “what we see as normal to eat is closely linked with our identities and is very personal”.

“For most people, climate arguments alone won’t help persuade them to change what they eat,” he said, adding it is better to talk about the health benefits of eating less meat and dairy in a positive way rather than shaming people.

High-income countries eat more servings of animal-sourced products than the global average

Both Sutton and Davey stressed that the debate over meat-eating is largely a wealthy country concern. People in higher-income regions eat three times as many servings of meat, seafood, eggs and dairy per day than their counterparts in South Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.

“Many, many people in the world – typically richer people in wealthier societies but also in unequal middle-income countries – need to eat much less meat for the purpose of their health, as well as for the climate, and many of the world’s poorer people need to eat more animal  protein for their health, well-being and nutrition,” said Davey.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post World Bank tiptoes into fiery debate over meat emissions appeared first on Climate Home News.

At a meeting in the German city of Bonn last week, government negotiators and experts from around the world approved an appeals and grievance procedure for the UN’s proposed Article 6.4 carbon crediting mechanism.

Maria AlJishi, chair of the body in charge of establishing the market, said in a statement that by introducing the procedure, “we’re establishing new avenues to empower vulnerable communities and individuals, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights are upheld.”

Isa Mulder, a researcher with campaign group Carbon Market Watch, told Climate Home the agreement on policies to challenge carbon credit projects before and after they are implemented was “quite a historic moment”. “This is pretty big,” she added.

The previous UN carbon market – called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – did not have any such procedures. It, and other carbon markets, have been plagued by allegations they have harmed local people and their livelihoods, as well as often not delivering the emissions reductions claimed.

Negative local impacts

In one CDM project in Uganda, Carbon Market Watch said villagers were being denied access to a tree plantation’s land which they used to grow food, graze livestock and gather firewood. In another CDM project in India, the National Green Tribunal found a waste incineration plant was releasing cancer-causing toxic chemicals into Delhi.

Road row in protected forest exposes Kenya’s climate conundrum

A hydro-electric plant in Guatemala, financed using the CDM, stopped local people reaching water to fish, wash coffee and bathe, while another plant in Chile diverted rivers, endangering the water supply to the country’s capital Santiago.

To prevent such abuses, governments have agreed that the CDM’s replacement – under Article 6.4 of the Paris pact – will have processes to make appeals and raise grievances. The appeals procedure is to challenge projects before they begin, and the grievance procedure will apply once they are in place.

Retribution risk

Only people directly affected by a carbon credit project can file a grievance – and only if they have suffered “adverse effects of a social, economic or environmental nature” caused by it.

After a grievance form has been filled in and published on the UN climate change website, an independent panel will have two weeks to put together recommendations to the Article 6.4 supervisory body, which makes the final decision on actions to be taken “as it deems appropriate”.

There will be no cost to filing a grievance, despite the supervisory body previously discussing fees of up to $5,000.

Loss and damage board speeds up work to allow countries direct access to funds

Complaints must, however, be submitted in one of the UN’s six official languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish – a requirement which Mulder called “a big problem” that “will specifically hit people who are most in need of protection”.

She added that the new procedures will not do enough to protect complainants from retribution from carbon credit sellers. “Sometimes it can be very sensitive if you file a grievance, but then there’s local tensions – and there’s also the project proponent who is right there and of course doesn’t want you to file a grievance,” she said.

Although negotiators have now agreed the appeals and grievance procedure, they were unable to approve a full set of rules for the Article 6.4 carbon market at the COP27 or COP28 summits in the past two years. They will try again at COP29 in November, and hope to have the market up and running by early 2025.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post UN agrees carbon market safeguards to tackle green land grabs appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the fourth – and penultimate – round of talks, negotiators did not agree to continue formal discussions on how to cut plastic production before a final session in the Korean city of Busan set for November, making it less likely that curbs will be included in the pact.

Peru’s negotiator said his country was “disappointed”, while the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law said governments had sacrificed “ambition for compromise”.

“The pathway to reaching a successful outcome in Busan looks increasingly perilous,” said Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency.

Big Oil’s plan B

While some governments led by a self-described “High-Ambition Coalition” have pushed for measures to reduce plastic production – which is expected to nearly double in G20 countries by mid-century – major oil and gas-producing states like the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran have favoured an emphasis on recycling over producing less.

The members of the self-described “High-Ambition Coalition” are in light blue (Photo credit: CREDIT)

Plastics are made from oil and gas, and their production accounts for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel companies are betting that as demand for oil and gas for energy use falls, they can compensate by selling more of their products to plastic manufacturers.

The Ottawa talks were marred by complaints from scientists and campaigners that plastics industry delegates were harassing and intimidating them, while secretively-funded, pro-plastics adverts were placed around the venue by a right-wing Canadian lobby group.

‘Unsustainable’ plastic use

The governments of Rwanda and Peru have been leading the push for a strong global deal to rein in plastic pollution, winning international approval for the talks to craft a treaty at the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2022.

In Ottawa last month, they asked governments to give their backing to formal negotiations on how to reduce the production and use of plastics, with support from the 65 member states of the High-Ambition Coalition.

While recognising that “this is an issue characterised by divergent views”, Rwanda’s negotiator told delegates “there is at least a convergence on the desire to develop an instrument that is fit for purpose guided by science – and to do so, the question we must ask is what are sustainable levels of production and consumption?”

“Science tells us that current and projected levels of plastic consumption and production are unsustainable and far exceed our waste management and recycling capacities. Moreover, these levels of production are also inconsistent with the goal of ending plastic pollution and limiting global warming to 1.5C,” she added.

‘More than a number’: Global plastic talks need community experts

But governments including Russia, Saudi Arabia and India are opposed to focusing on production curbs. The Ecuadorian chair of the talks, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso, did not include production in the list of topics to be officially discussed further before the final negotiations in South Korea.

Instead, he proposed expert groups on how to fund efforts to tackle plastic pollution and on criteria for identifying types of plastic product “of concern”. Governments accepted this, finishing their discussions at 3am on Tuesday.

Compromise welcomed

Peru expressed disappointment at the decision not to focus on production – but Russia’s negotiator welcomed it, saying that issues like the design of plastics and recycling are the “cornerstone of the future agreement” and so the talks should focus on them.

India’s delegate said the negotiations should be conducted in “a realistic manner and with consensus”, adding that “plastics have played an important role in development of our societies”.

Saudi Arabia’s negotiator praised the talks’ chair for “looking into those topics that bring convergence”, while many countries including China, the US and the European Union said the Ottawa outcome was a good compromise.

Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund

Late on the last night of the talks, the EU had proposed holding another full session of negotiations before Busan, but that was blocked by Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

David Azoulay, an observer for the Center for International Environmental Law, accused developed countries that style themselves as leaders on plastics of giving up the fight “as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them”.

In response to the lack of progress on production curbs, a group of countries led by the Pacific island nation of Micronesia put out a statement promising to continue talking informally about the issue and to keep it on the agenda. Thirty-two countries signed the “Bridge to Busan” initiative, including Nigeria, France and Australia, and more are expected to join later.

Micronesian negotiator Dennis Clare told Climate Home that its signatories “recognise that we cannot achieve our climate goals, or our goal of ending plastic pollution, without limiting plastic production to sustainable levels”.

Delays, intimidation and harassment

The four rounds of talks held since 2022 have been marked by delays, which some observers say are deliberate tactics by countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

At the second session in Paris last May, negotiators spent two days discussing voting rules, an issue which many thought had already been resolved.

And the third round in Nairobi in November failed to agree on intersessional work leading to Ottawa, after opposition from Russia and Saudi Arabia.

In Ottawa, the meeting was marred by complaints of intimidation and harassment from campaigners and scientists against some of the 196 lobbyists from the plastic and fossil fuel industry present in the halls.

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Bethanie Carney Almroth, a ecotoxicology professor at the University of Gothenburg who co-chairs the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, wrote a formal complaint to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the body that organises the talks.

She said she had been “verbally harassed, yelled at and subjected to unfounded accusations” by a male delegate from a plastics company, who interrupted her remarks to criticise an aspect of scientific research on plastics which he falsely said she was involved in.

In a separate complaint to UNEP, Almroth said plastics industry delegates had eavesdropped on scientists’ conversations, aggressively surrounded them and criticised their work, and “harassed and badgered several of our younger scientists”.

Marcos Orellana, the UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, said on X that it was “extremely worrying to hear about intimidation and harassment of scientists by industry”, adding “there should be zero tolerance for industry misconduct”.

Pro-plastic ads

Almroth told Climate Home that delegates were also faced with pro-plastic adverts at Ottawa airport, as well as on buses and taxis. “The entire city of Ottawa has been completely blanket-wallpapered in propaganda and pro-plastic and anti-UN campaigns,” she said.

Photos of these adverts seen by Climate Home show that some do not declare who paid for them, while others say they are sponsored by a right-wing lobby group called the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (CCMBC).

I’m at #INC4 in Ottawa, reporting on the #PlasticsTreaty. The conference itself is plastic-free (food sold at the venue is wrapped in paper), but these ads are plastered in the hotel next door where events are being held pic.twitter.com/Bu8b6jawqG

— Lisa Song is @lisalsong.bsky.social (@lisalsong) April 24, 2024

The CCMBC’s president, political activist Catherine Swift, drove a van around the conference centre with pro-plastics adverts on it. In an interview next to the van with Rebel News, she claimed that plastics are “almost infinitely recyclable” and that recycling is the solution to plastic pollution. Passers-by tell Swift and Rebel News in the online clip that the adverts are “kind of weird” and that “plastic is killing the planet”.

The CCMBC does not systematically declare its donors. But videos from its 2023 gala dinner reveal that its sponsors include oil and gas companies like NuVista, TC Energy and plastics company Husky, whose CEO John Galt has appeared on the CCMBC’s Youtube channel.

“This is big money. This is high stakes,” said Almroth. “Plastics is the fossil fuel and the petro-chemical industry’s plan B. As we shift away from fossil fuels as an energy source, they’re putting their bets on plastics and we’re a threat to them.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Hopes fade for production curbs in new global pact on plastic pollution appeared first on Climate Home News.

Christopher Dabu, a priest in Lusitu parish in southern Zambia, one of the affected regions, said that because of the drought, his parishioners “have nothing”- including their staple food.

“Almost every day, there’s somebody who comes here to knock on this gate asking for mielie meal, [saying] ‘Father, I am dying of hunger’,” Dabu told Climate Home outside his church last month.

The government and some humanitarian agencies were quick to blame the lack of rain on climate change.

Zambia’s green economy minister Collins Nzovu told reporters in March, “there’s a lot of infrastructure damage as a result of climate change”. He added that the new UN-backed loss and damage fund, now being set up to help climate change victims, “must speak to this”.

Reverend Christopher Dabu outside his church in Lusitu, Zambia (Photo: Joe Lo)

But last week, scientists from the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group published a study which found that “climate change did not emerge as the significant driver” of the current drought affecting Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Angola, Mozambique and Botswana.

Instead, they concluded that the El Niño phenomenon – which occurs every few years with warming of sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean – was the drought’s “key driver”. They said the damage was worsened by the vulnerabilities of the countries affected, including reliance on rain-fed farming rather than irrigation.

Nonetheless, briefing journalists on the study, co-authors Joyce Kimutai and Friederike Otto said climate change does make El Niños stronger and more frequent – and therefore could be playing an indirect role in the southern African drought. Otto noted that climate change “might have a small role but not a big one”.

While WWA studies have often found that disasters like this are driven by climate change, there have been other cases where they have played down that link – as with droughts in Brazil in 2014 and Madagascar in 2021, and floods in Italy in 2023.

The complex nature of the science raises a dilemma for those now designing the fledgling loss and damage fund.

Its board holds its first meeting in Abu Dhabi this week. In three days of talks, the board’s 26 members will discuss the fund’s name and how to decide where it will be hosted and who will lead it. Trickier issues like the role of climate change attribution will be left to future meetings.

Climate Home spoke to several experts and two of the fund’s board members, whose opinions were divided on whether the link between climate change and a particular disaster should have to be proven before funds are dished out to affected communities.

Droughts and climate change

Egyptian climate negotiator Mohamed Nasr, a member of the new fund’s board, said he thought triggers for funding “would include the climate relation to the losses and damages”.

But to judge that connection, he said the board would “rely on confirmed science per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) rather than individual studies”. He said the IPCC and UNEP “provide the scientific reference needed as they bring all views and assess the credibility and scientific basis”.

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

The IPCC does not do original research, including attribution studies, but every five to seven years it compiles existing research to reach conclusions about climate change, including its impacts. The last IPCC report focused on that topic in 2022 said “increases in drought frequency and duration are projected over large parts of southern Africa”.

UNEP currently does not conduct attribution studies, with a spokesperson saying this was “due to resource constraints” but adding “we hope to do more in the future”.

Another loss and damage fund board member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the fund should only disburse money for loss and damage caused by climate change. But they asserted that due to the “chicken and egg” link between climate change and El Niño, the current southern African drought is climate-driven and so its victims should be entitled to funding.

‘Theoretical disputes’

Mattias Söderberg, who works for humanitarian organisation DanChurchAid – which has been defining and addressing loss and damage since 2019 – said attribution “is not always easy”.

But, he added, “people facing disasters should not be left behind because of theoretical disputes about attribution”.

Speaking ahead of a visit to a Kenyan refugee camp for people displaced by what he calls “loss and damage and climate-related conflicts”, he said, “I’m pretty sure they will be frustrated if they knew funding to help them cope could be questioned.”

The loss and damage fund, with advice from scientists, should draw up categories of disaster that tend to be driven by climate change – like heatwaves and droughts but excluding earthquakes which are not, he added.

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Zoha Shawoo, who researches loss and damage at the Stockholm Environment Institute, said that even if climate change played only a small role in the latest southern Africa drought, previous climate disasters had made the region’s people more vulnerable to the drought.

In addition, the current dry spell leaves them more vulnerable to future climate disasters, she added. “If they don’t receive financial support for recovery, future losses and damages will be a lot worse,” she said.

Gernot Laganda, director for climate and resilience at the UN’s World Food Programme, said that a formal attribution requirement for the loss and damage fund feels like “overkill” for a still relatively small fund. Transaction costs should be kept as low as possible, he added.

Data gaps

Kimutai, who worked on the WWA study, said she was confident the group had enough data to reach its conclusions on this particular drought. But she told a webinar hosted by the CGIAR agricultural research centre last month that a lack of data in many poorer countries means a funding requirement of attribution to global warming would be “detrimental to climate justice”.

In 2022, WWA was unable to work out the role of climate change in a drought in the Sahel region of Africa, partly blaming a lack of data. One of the drought-hit countries was Mali – which is three times the size of Germany. Mali has just 13 active weather stations, while Germany has 200, according to Bloomberg.

Limiting frontline voices in the Loss and Damage Fund is a recipe for disaster

Kimutai added that, besides data, there is a lack of expertise in doing these kinds of studies in the Global South.

Any moves to deny funds to vulnerable people impacted by drought – whatever the causes – are likely to be met with anger. Speaking to journalists about the southern Africa emergency a few days after the WWA study was issued, Chikwe Mbweeda, Zambia director for the aid agency CARE, said that “for us, we definitely understand that [the drought] is coming from the climate change effects”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund appeared first on Climate Home News.

Stiell said this month that he personally “would certainly like to see future COPs reduce in size”, telling an audience at London’s Chatham House think-tank that “bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better”.

In Dubai, where the 2023 summit was held from November 30 to December 13, the Expo City site was so large that important delegates were ferried around on golf buggies while electric scooters were available to get around the public area, known as the Green Zone.

“Size does not necessarily translate to the quality of outcomes,” Stiell said in London, noting that the UN climate change secretariat (UNFCCC) is discussing the issue with the hosts of COP29 in Azerbaijan this year and COP30 next year in Brazil.

Last week, Climate Home reporters visited the COP29 host city of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan – on a tour sponsored by the COP29 presidency – and also the location of COP30, the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, to see how preparations are going for the November 2024 and 2025 gatherings.

Azerbaijan’s government is expecting just 40,000 people to come to the Baku Olympic Stadium for the talks this year, while Belém’s remoteness, congested roads and lack of hotels are likely to substantially limit how many people can attend the “Amazon COP”.

The number of people attending COPs has shot up in recent years. Close to 40,000 people went to COP26 in Glasgow, around 50,000 were in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for COP27 and nearly 84,000 headed to Dubai last year. But most of the 28 COPs held since 1995 have been attended by fewer than 10,000 people.

Just over half of last year’s participants belonged to government delegations, with most of the rest comprising staff working at the conference or activists from non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

In practice, the boundaries of these categories are blurred though, as government delegations often include business representatives, NGO employees, journalists and others.

Baku’s Olympic Stadium

The government of Azerbaijan will host COP29 in the country’s Caspian seaside capital, Baku. A member of the organising committee told Climate Home they are expecting around 40,000 people.

The government has not had much time to prepare, as it was only tasked with the presidency last November at COP28 after Eastern Europe’s geopolitical divisions delayed the decision on which country would host the summit.

But it already has a venue: the Olympic Stadium on the outskirts of Baku. According to state media, COP29 chief operations officer Narmin Jarchalova said temporary structures will be built around the stadium to accommodate the negotiations and side events. These are likely to be in car-park areas.

The city is used to hosting major events. Ten thousand come each year for Formula One’s Baku Grand Prix and the 69,870-capacity Olympic Stadium has hosted the 2015 European Games, big concerts, the 2019 Europa League football final and Euro 2020 matches, although no Olympic Games despite the name.

Climate Home visited the area in April while in Baku, as part of a press trip organised by the COP29 presidency team. The stadium is connected to the city centre, where most hotels are located, by a Soviet-era metro railway with a one-way journey taking around 45 minutes.

A car journey should take about half of that, 20 minutes, but heavy traffic gridlocked the main roads in and out of Baku when Climate Home visited.

The Baku Olympic Stadium (Photo: Matteo Civillini)

Climate Home asked the COP29 team for information on how the temporary COP facilities will be built, powered and heated sustainably during the summit, but had received no response at the time of publication.

In February, Climate Home revealed that the government had told hotels in Baku not to sell rooms for COP29’s November 11-22 dates until further notice.

In London this month, UN climate chief Stiell said, with regard to the number of participants, that “we have an opportunity with Azerbaijan and we’re engaging with them”. He did not give further details.

COPs usually feature one big climate demonstration on the middle Saturday of the two-week talks. The UNFCCC is talking to the COP29 team about how this will be enabled.

Protesters march on the middle Saturday of COP26 in Glasgow, UK, in 2021 (Photos: Insure Our Future)

In a meeting at the energy ministry last week, COP29 CEO and deputy energy minister Elnur Soltanov told journalists, including Climate Home, that these discussions were “fruitful”.

Human rights groups like Freedom House say Azerbaijan does not respect freedom of assembly. Police violently arrested opposition protesters in 2019.

Soltanov was asked if the climate march will be allowed to take place in the city, which is governed by Azerbaijan’s police force, or only in the COP29 venue, which is under the jurisdiction of UN security guards.

He replied that “this is too specific a question” but said that protest is “part and parcel of people expressing their views, their anger, their desperation”.

Brazil’s Amazon COP

On Belém, which is in northern Brazil near the Amazon rainforest, Stiell said he was “actively discussing with the Brazilians how we can reduce the size of the COP so that the logistics of it can be supported at that hosted destination”.

Last June, Brazilian climate ministry official André Corrêa Lago told local media he was expecting 40,000-50,000 people. But there are concerns that the city will struggle to cope with those numbers.

Belém is not a major tourist destination and has less than 6,000 hotel rooms. Even at last year’s Amazon Summit – a smaller event than a COP – participants reported difficulty finding rooms and rates soared.

Construction workers are currently turning a 1.6 km-long disused airport runway into the Parque de Cidade (City Park), which will be the size of about 70 football pitches. The park and its new buildings will be the main COP30 venue.

The government of Pará State says it is almost one-third finished. The federal government, meanwhile, is reportedly considering hosting part of COP30 in bigger cities like Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro.

A spokesperson for the federal government told Climate Home that “all possibilities to enable the reception of delegations and visitors are being evaluated”.

As well as the park and its new buildings, some of the conference will be held in an existing conference centre on the park’s southern tip called The Hangar – which hosted last year’s Amazon Summit.

The Hangar convention centre (Photo: Alice Martins Morais)

For COP30 delegates though, finding a hotel room and getting to the venue are likely to be challenging. 

A spokesperson for the COP30 organising committee said last week that while 84,000 people went to COP28, the peak daily attendance was just 41,000 at the beginning of the conference when heads of state made their speeches.

An Ibis hotel near the COP30 site (Photo: Alice Martins Morais)

The spokesperson told Climate Home the organisers are looking at bringing in cruise ships for COP participants to sleep on, refurbishing schools to serve as hostels and encouraging people to rent out their rooms on Airbnb.

To promote the “modernisation” of the city’s existing hotel rooms, the government has given hotel operators tax exemptions on purchases for new equipment like minibars, televisions and air-conditioning.

The city’s airport, which the government aims to improve before COP30, has few regular international connections and is over three hours by plane from Brazil’s major hubs like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. 

There are no trains to Belém and getting the bus from Rio or Sao Paulo can take more than two days.

The Belém Bus Rapid Transit system is scheduled to be completed by COP30 (Photo: Alice Martins Morais)

Even inside the city, transport is challenging. The roads are congested, particularly in the centre where most of the hotels are, during rush-hour and when it rains.

The authorities have tried to solve the problem by widening roads and building dedicated bus lanes for a Bus Rapid Transit system.

While these are being constructed, they have made traffic worse – but the body in charge told Climate Home work is progressing according to schedule and should be completed by the second half of 2024 – well before the UN climate summit the following year.

“The new fleet will reinforce the capital’s transport system for COP30,” said a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transport Management Centre, adding that 40 of the 265 new air-conditioned buses will be electric.

Argentinian scientists condemn budget cuts ahead of university protest

Nonetheless, the remoteness of the location is likely to translate into a bigger carbon footprint for delegates travelling from overseas.

While COPs have a sizable carbon footprint, researchers investigating misinformation have found this is often exaggerated on social and traditional media by those trying to undermine climate action.

Examples include pictures of private jets with captions falsely associating them with COP or of biofuel generators with captions erroneously claiming they are diesel.

Questioned about COPs’ carbon footprint by an audience member at London’s Chatham House, UN climate head Stiell replied that “at every COP, we get the reports – how many private planes [and] the CO2 footprint for hosting those COPs”.

But, he added, “taking a very pragmatic view, we need the right people around the table in order for this process to work and there will be a cost to that. How you ensure that those that are present are the ones necessary to contribute positively to the process is also important.”

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini in Baku, Alice Martins Morais in Belém and Joe Lo in London; videos by Fanis Kollias; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Peak COP? UN looks to shrink Baku and Belém climate summits appeared first on Climate Home News.

The finance ministers of Brazil and France pushed this week for a tax on US-dollar billionaires of at least 2% of their wealth each year, with the $250 billion it could raise going to tackle poverty, hunger and climate change.

Brazil’s Fernando Haddad and France’s Bruno Le Maire promoted their proposal at the Spring Meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, alongside IMF head Kristalina Georgieva and Kenyan finance minister Njuguna Ndung’u.

“In a world where economic activities are increasingly transnational, we have to find new and creative ways to tax these activities [and] thus direct the revenues to common global endeavours such as ending hunger and poverty and fighting climate change,” said Haddad.

He called on world leaders to show “political courage”, embrace “innovative solutions based on evidence” and give their people “hope”. “Without courage, there’s no good politics that can be done,” he said.

Speaking next at a briefing in Washington, Le Maire said overhauling the taxation system was “a matter of efficiency and a matter of justice”, and that a levy on the super-rich should follow already-agreed measures for a digital tax and global minimum corporation tax. “Everybody has to pay his fair share of taxation,” he added.

Canadian minister vows to fight attempts to weaken plastic pollution treaty

French economist Gabriel Zucman is drawing up a proposal for a billionaires tax that will be presented to G20 finance ministers and central bankers when they meet in the Brazilian city of Rio De Janeiro in July.

Haddad, whose government will host that meeting as G20 chair, said he wanted the Group of 20 big economies to issue a statement of support. Le Maire said he hoped the wealth tax would be in place by 2027, ten years after reform of the international taxation system began.

But at a separate press conference in Washington this week, Germany’s finance minister Christian Lindner rejected the proposal. “We do not think it is suitable,” he said. “We have an appropriate taxation of income.” Lindner is from the free-market Free Democratic Party, part of Germany’s governing coalition with the centre-left and Greens.

Who will spend it?

Zucman said not all countries needed to agree to a measure for it to be implemented. If some countries don’t tax billionaires, others can tax them more to make up for it, he said, adding that is how the global minimum corporation tax rate of 15% – which went into effect this year – works.

While Haddad spoke of tackling hunger and climate change, it is not yet clear who would be in charge of spending the money raised from billionaires or what it would be spent on.

Esther Duflo in 2009 (Photos: PopTech)

Esther Duflo, another French economist who addressed G20 ministers this week, told journalists the money should be given to developing countries to deal with climate change.

The best use, she said, is for the money to go to poor people before a climate shock like a heatwave hits, for their communities to protect them through measures like air-conditioned public spaces, and to governments for reinsurance against climate disasters.

From academia to politics

A billionaires tax has long been pushed by progressive economists like Zucman and Joseph Stiglitz. But it has been taken from academia onto the political agenda by the G20 presidency of Brazil’s left-wing government led by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Haddad.

Zucman presented the proposal at a G20 finance ministers meeting in  Sao Paulo in February. It was the “first time these issues of inequality, progressive taxation [and] extreme wealth concentration were discussed in such a forum”, he said, adding that the “vast majority praised Brazil for putting those issues on the agenda”.

The main barrier, he said, is that billionaires will fight back against it. “They have a particular hatred for any kind of tax based on wealth. Why? Because that’s the one tax that really works for them,” he said.

Gabriel Zucman speaks at the World Economic Forum in Davos last year (Photos: World Economic Forum)

But E3G analyst Sima Kammourieh, a former economic adviser to the French government, was more pessimistic about the prospect of a billionaires tax being implemented. She “wouldn’t completely rule it out, but it’s something which could take many many years to come to fruition”, she said.

Although Zucman insisted the tax could go ahead without the US on board, Kammourieh warned that a Donald Trump victory in the US elections in November would be damaging. Joe Biden has called for higher taxes on billionaires, while Trump is one of the world’s nearly 3,000 billionaires.

Elsewhere at the Spring Meetings in Washington this week, France, Kenya and Barbados launched a taskforce to examine how to fill the gap in climate finance for developing and vulnerable countries – excluding China – which will need investment of $2.4 trillion per year by 2030, according to economists Vera Songwe and Nicholas Stern.

The taskforce will consider taxes on wealthy people, plane tickets, financial transactions, shipping fuel, fossil fuel production and fossil fuel firms’ windfall profits. It will also mull redirecting state fossil fuel subsidies to a new global loss and damage fund and windfall taxes on fossil fuel producers when prices are exceptionally high.

The plan is for one or more proposals to be presented to governments with the aim of securing international agreement at the COP30 UN climate summit in Brazil in late 2025.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Global billionaires tax to fight climate change, hunger rises up political agenda appeared first on Climate Home News.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, who will host the talks in Ottawa starting on April 23, said in an interview with Climate Home that all governments had “agreed collectively that we wanted an ambitious treaty to fight plastic pollution and to eliminate it by 2040”.

But, he added, “unfortunately some countries seem to have forgotten that’s what we agreed upon [at the United Nations Environment Assembly] almost two years ago. I’m going to make it my mission in life in the coming weeks to remind everyone that this is our collective agreement.”

He did not specify which countries appear to be backtracking, but noted that some “are in more of a hurry than others” to get a deal – “which is why you have a high-ambition coalition”.

That coalition is pushing for a strong accord to end plastic pollution and includes all large developed countries except the United States, plus some developing nations.

The members of the self-described “high-ambition coalition” are coloured in light blue.

Guilbeault was speaking during the latest UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi last month, where some governments tried to water down anti-plastics language.

David Azoulay, from the Center for International Environmental Law, told Climate Home “a number of countries” had tried at this year’s UNEA to “get around or away” from the mandate to set up a plastics treaty.

They did not propose a rival resolution, he said, “probably because they saw there was very little appetite for it”. But that did not stop them from attempting to use the assembly to influence the plastics treaty negotiations, he added. The talks are organised by the United Nations Environment Programme.

In submissions to the UNEA, the US tried to delete the words “legally binding” in reference to the plastics treaty, Iran wanted to remove “ambitious”, and Saudi Arabia attempted to cut a reference to accelerating the treaty talks.

Russia’s ambassador to Kenya, Dmitry Maksimychev, told the UNEA that Russia is an “active participant” in the talks and “we do not support shifting emphasis to restrictive measures of a productive or commercial nature”.

Plastics support fossil fuel demand

Over the last two years, government negotiators have gathered for three rounds of talks on setting up the treaty to tackle plastic pollution.

The fourth round will be held in Ottawa this month, and the fifth and supposedly final session will be in the South Korean city of Busan in November. The agreement should then be adopted officially at a diplomatic conference in 2025.

BP expects the share of oil demand from non-combusted (grey) sectors like plastic to rise in the next few decades. (Photo: BP/Screenshot)

Plastics are made from oil and gas, and their production causes 3% of greenhouse gas emissions. The fossil fuel industry predicts that as demand for oil and gas for energy falls, they can make up for it by selling their products to plastic manufacturers.

New estimates from the US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show plastic production emits as much carbon pollution each year (2.24 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019) as 600 coal-fired power plants.

A study published by the lab on Thursday, supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Beyond Petrochemicals campaign, warned that carbon pollution from plastic production could triple by 2050.

And even if global power grids shift over to clean energy, the plastic industry’s share of the global carbon budget could rise from just over 5 percent now to more than 20 percent by mid-century, based on conservative projections for industry growth, it added.

Plastic litter also makes flooding – already exacerbated by climate change – worse.

In Zambia, Lwenga Mulela, whose company converts plastic waste into useful products like paving and plant pots, told Climate Home plastic bottles pile up in drainage channels in the nearby capital Lusaka and stop rain escaping down the drain, causing flooding on the streets.

Lwenga Mulela shows plastic wrappers which she turns into products like paving on March 12 24. (Photo: Joe Lo)

During a brief rainstorm in Lusaka’s Central Business District in March, Climate Home saw cars slowing to a crawl to pass through puddles and pedestrians jumping over water to stay dry.

Money talks

The UN treaty negotiations have so far been divided on whether to focus on the production of plastic, potentially through targets to reduce it, as the “high-ambition coalition” and climate campaigners want.

The alternative is to limit its scope to expanding recycling of plastic, as the industry itself and the US, Saudi Arabia and others are calling for.

Asked if plastic production should be in the treaty, Canada’s Guilbeault said: “We have to look at every element of plastic pollution.” But asked about the biggest remaining divides, he pointed to finance.

Many countries, particularly small islands, “receive an incredible amount of plastic pollution that they’re not responsible for, and there should be an international mechanism to help them deal with the problem,” he said.

Activists clean up a beach in Fiji in 2016 (Photo: Kurt Peterson/Greenpeace)

“Right now with the economic situation internationally – high interest rates, high inflation – it’s a difficult conversation but it’s a necessary conversation nonetheless,” he added.

This was highlighted by Madagascar’s representative at the UNEA who said his country backed a plastics treaty and was “insisting on the need to prepare global countries of the south and support them in this regard”.

In Zambia, entrepreneur Mulela also called for finance for developing countries to develop waste disposal and recycling systems. She said the companies that produce the plastic should provide that funding, as should richer nations.

“I think they have an obligation,” she said. “It’s a global village, so what is affecting one part of the world is also affecting every other part of the world.”

Approval by consensus or vote?

If governments do not unanimously agree on a text in November, a treaty could be endorsed through a two-thirds majority vote – but, for many negotiators, that would be a last resort.

Jyoti Mathur-Filipp, head of the secretariat responsible for the talks, told Climate Home “there is no wish on any member state’s part to actually have a vote on substance… so for us, we hope that we will adopt this treaty with consensus, without a vote.”

But, for campaigners like Greenpeace’s Graham Forbes, the apparent unwillingness to vote could end up weakening or delaying the treaty as he argued that a process based on consensus has enabled low-ambition countries to “undermine substantive progress”.

“Voting would enable member states that are serious about addressing the issue to negotiate a treaty that actually gets at the core of the issue: reducing plastic production and use,” he said.

Guilbeault took the middle-ground, noting that not every country has to agree to something for it to be adopted by consensus.

He wants the new treaty “to have as much buy-in as possible from as many countries as possible but, at the same time, I don’t think the world should be held hostage to the interest of a few countries – that’s not consensus either.”

The talks in Ottawa are tasked with narrowing down the draft text for the treaty. Guilbeault said he hopes to see 75-80% of it agreed this month, but added that the thorniest issues will be left to Busan in November.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

This article was amended on April 23, 2024 to clarify that Steven Guilbeault is the host of the plastics treaty talks in Ottawa – not the chair, as previously stated. The role of chair is currently held by Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Ecuador’s ambassador to the UK.

The post Canadian minister vows to fight attempts to weaken plastic pollution treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

“It’s hard for any government to invest in renewables or climate resilience when the treasury coffers are bare, debt servicing costs have overtaken health spending, new borrowing is impossible and the wolves of poverty are at the door,” he said in a major speech at the Chatham House think-tank in London.

Climate finance has traditionally consisted mainly of wealthy governments and multilateral development banks giving loans and grants to developing countries to help them reduce planet-heating emissions and adapt to climate change.

But Stiell’s speech focused heavily on other sources of finance, which would not burden taxpayers in rich nations but are unlikely to be agreed in time for next year’s round of climate plans under the Paris Agreement.

Stiell said governments must agree at the Cop29 UN climate summit this year “a new target for climate finance that meets developing country needs”. But, he added, “it’s not enough to agree a target. We need a new deal on climate finance between developed and developing countries.”

Billionaires and boats

That would include “new sources of international climate finance, as the G20, International Maritime Organization (IMO) and others are working on”, he noted.

The Brazilian government, as chair of the G20, wants the group’s 20 major economies to agree a minimum tax on billionaires, and has hinted that some of this levy could be spent on climate finance.

Spring Meetings can jump-start financial reform for food and climate

But this has not been agreed – and is likely to prove controversial. E3G analyst Sima Kammourieh said geopolitical splits over the wars in Ukraine and Gaza had held back G20 negotiations, as had the recent death of the Brazilian diplomat leading the discussions, Daniel Machado da Fonseca.

Governments at the IMO, meanwhile, have agreed to put a price on shipping emissions. But the IMO and government shipping negotiators have suggested they want most of this money to be used to clean up the shipping industry, not for broader climate finance such as the new UN loss and damage fund.

Spring meetings

Ahead of next week’s spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), Stiell reiterated his support for the Bridgetown Agenda, a set of international financial reforms that would shift more multilateral funding into tackling climate change.

“The Spring Meetings are not a dress rehearsal. Averting a climate-driven economic catastrophe is core business,” Stiell said. “It can’t slip between the cracks of different mandates.”

So far, the biggest reform agreed is a change to the World Bank’s debt-to-equity ratio of 1%. That will free up $4 billion a year – but while reformers are calling for more, opponents fear credit rating agencies will downgrade the bank, making it more expensive to borrow money.

European court rules climate inaction by states breaches human rights

The newest proposal in Stiell’s speech was his call for the IMF to make “more use” of an obscure pot of money called the Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT).

The CCRT provides grants for debt relief to the world’s poorest countries when they are hit by disasters that meet a preset threshold of destruction.

But the IMF’s latest annual report described the trust as “critically underfunded” with “insufficient resources to provide significant relief” when another disaster strikes.

Old-fashioned finance?

French President Emmanuel Macron has been a vocal supporter of a new global pact on finance that would push more money into climate action into debt-strapped developing nations, hosting many world leaders at a summit in Paris last year to discuss the reforms.

But last month, France cut its aid budget by 12.5%. The UK has also reduced its aid spending in recent years, and shuffled the numbers to count more as climate finance – while a potential Donald Trump victory threatens the US’s already relatively low level of international climate funding.

Former French diplomat, Laurence Tubiana, who is now chair of the European Climate Foundation, told journalists yesterday that in Europe the “fiscal space is just non-existent”, adding “the agenda of the day is to cut public spending”.

But Sara Jane Ahmed, finance adviser to the V20 group of climate-vulnerable countries, told Climate Home that rich nations can create more fiscal space by printing money, borrowing, taxing or cutting spending elsewhere.

In London, Stiell said a “quantum leap in climate finance is both essential and entirely achievable”, and argued that providing more is in the interests of powerful developed countries.

Without climate finance, he said, poorer nations would not submit bold new climate plans and then “all economies, the G7’s included, will soon be in serious and permanent strife”.

The post UN climate chief calls for “quantum leap in climate finance” appeared first on Climate Home News.

International oil companies, led by US firm ExxonMobil, plan to extract 11 billion barrels of oil from Guyana’s ocean floor and sell it abroad to be burned, thereby worsening global warming. The country pumped its first oil in 2020.

Despite this, late last month Guyanese president Irfaan Ali defended his country’s green credentials in a heated interview with the BBC’s Hardtalk programme, which went viral on social media. “Even with our greatest exploration of the oil and gas resources we have now, we will still be net zero,” he said, referring to the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have the lowest rate of deforestation in the world… Guyana will still be net zero”

President Irfaan Ali says Guyana won’t take lectures on climate change as it exploits its huge offshore oil and gas reserves

https://t.co/TKxhR6r3ur pic.twitter.com/xIJTgRsfZP

— BBC HARDtalk (@BBCHARDtalk) March 29, 2024

The case of Guyana shows how countries with large forests can use unclear rules on counting national carbon emissions to justify fossil fuel production.

Michael Lazarus, a scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), told Climate Home it is “absurd” to claim that capturing and storing carbon dioxide (CO2) in forests offsets the emissions impact of oil production, as “they have nothing to do with each other than geographic proximity”.

Official United Nations carbon accounting rules, drawn up nearly 20 years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), allow Guyana to claim net-zero status because they do not specify which types of forest governments can take credit for preserving – and also because the emissions from oil are counted in the country where it is used and burned, not where it is produced.

Experts said governments are taking advantage of having barely-touched forests on their land that suck up CO2, and argued that fossil fuel-rich nations like Guyana should bear part of the moral responsibility for the emissions of their polluting products.

“The problem is that within the country, you are allowing the emissions to continue or even to rise, and then you are trying to balance that out internally by saying that we have this forest,” said Souparna Lahiri from the Global Forest Coalition.

Carbon-negative club

Around 93% of Guyana is covered in forest – more than any other nation but its neighbour Suriname. The population numbers just 800,000, mostly clustered on its coastline, and those people on average emit slightly less than the global average per capita.

Although the country’s non-forestry emissions are growing steadily, CO2 absorption by its vast forests more than compensates for that.

In its emissions inventory sent to the United Nations, the government claimed: “Guyana is a net carbon sink, with its lush managed forest cover removing up to ten times more than the emissions produced in the country up to the year 2022”.

Other small, sparsely-populated forest-covered nations like Suriname, Panama and Bhutan assert they are carbon-negative too.

While not claiming the same accolade, leaders of bigger forest nations like Russia and Brazil have also used their forests to defend their climate record.

In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a US-hosted summit: “Russia makes a gigantic contribution to absorbing global emissions – both ours and from elsewhere – owing to the great absorption capacity of our ecosystems.”

Despite rising Brazilian deforestation under Jair Bolsonaro, the former president told the same summit that the Amazon’s carbon absorption was evidence that “Brazil is at the very forefront of efforts to tackle global warming”.

Managed vs unmanaged

International carbon accounting rules essentially leave it up to governments to decide how much credit they claim for CO2 absorption by national forests, with many opting to count it all.

In 2006, scientists working with the IPCC came up with a distinction between “managed” land – where greenhouse gas emissions and removals should be attributed to humans and nations – and “unmanaged” land where forests are natural and governments should neither be credited nor blamed for emissions levels.

The IPCC defined “managed” land as “land where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social functions”. Those could include planting a commercial forest, protecting a forest from fire, or designating it for conservation.

In its national emissions inventory report, Guyana does not differentiate between “managed” and “unmanaged land” – and claims credit for CO2 sequestration by all of its forests.

Guyanese forestry expert Michelle Kalamandeen told Climate Home the government is doing well at protecting the rainforest but should not classify it all as managed by the state. Much of it – particularly in the south – is inaccessible, so “they’re just relying on remoteness for protection of it”, she explained.

The Global Forest Coalition’s Lahiri agreed, saying that most of Guyana’s forest seems to be intact old-growth forest “so it is not a plantation or managed forest in that sense”.

A global issue

From this perspective, Guyana is by no means the only country that appears to be over-counting its emission sinks. A 2018 study in the journal Carbon Balance and Management found that over fourth-fifths of the 101 countries analysed counted all their land as managed.

Even those countries that make a distinction often counted all of their forest – but not all their land – as managed. Australia is one example.

Even the rare few that consider some of their forests “unmanaged” have drawn the line in different places.

Russia counts most of its forests as managed with a few exceptions, the US counts everything outside of Alaska (and much inside it) as managed, and Canada counts everything it tries to protect from fires.

The USA’s “managed” land (blue) and “unmanaged” land (grey) (Photos: Carbon Balance and Management)

Brazil stands out as the exception, counting just under half of its huge forests as managed and foregoing a carbon accounting boost from the other half.

Oil emissions

The other carbon accounting orthodoxy Guyana relies on is attributing emissions from burning fossil fuels like oil to the countries where they are burned, not where they are produced.

The vast majority of Guyana’s oil will be exported to regions like Europe and Asia or to neighbouring Brazil, meaning that emissions from its use will be counted there.

This way of measuring emissions prevents them from being double-counted – but it lets extracting nations off the hook for the carbon pollution caused by the fossil fuels they sell abroad.

Kalamandeen said oil-producing countries have some responsibility for the emissions created by the consumption of their fossil fuels, while the home nations of fossil fuel companies should also step up. In Guyana’s case, that would be the US and China, as the oil extraction consortium is made up of ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

SEI’s Lazarus described the current system as an “essential accountability framework for governments and civil society” – but agreed that producers should be held morally accountable too.

Without that, he said, “we’d turn a blind eye to… the lock-in effects of long-lived fossil fuel supply investments that impede the global clean energy transition”.

The post Forest carbon accounting allows Guyana to stay net zero while pumping oil appeared first on Climate Home News.

The green policy aims to boost both climate action and the heavily-indebted Zambian economy, but taxi drivers in Lusaka, the southern African country’s capital, told Climate Home they are suffering from rising prices for driving and food.

“We have been hit hard,” said 29-year old Masuzyo Kampamba, as he motored down a two-lane highway towards past crowds of children celebrating national youth day last month. 

Kampamba doesn’t feel able to get married and start a family as he would not be able to provide for them due to the high cost of living.

Waiting outside the upmarket East Park Mall, driver Stephen Musanda said he is struggling too. 

Filling up his regular Toyota taxi used to cost 17 kwacha ($0.70) a litre – for which he now pays 31 kwacha ($1.30). “It’s hard for a common driver like me to survive,” he said.

A Total petrol station near Lusaka’s Central Business District on March 10, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

IMF’s global push

In debt-strapped developing countries like Zambia, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is using its financial power to push for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Similar IMF-backed policies in Haiti and Ecuador have led to mass protests in the last few years.

At the Cop28 UN climate summit last December, governments agreed to contribute to a global effort to transition away from fossil fuels “in a just, orderly and equitable manner”. What that means in practice is still being worked out.

In Zambia and other places like Nigeria, many ordinary citizens feel the shift away from fossil fuel subsidies has not been done fairly so far, with the burden falling on those who cannot afford it. Even supporters of the reforms in Zambia admit they are “painful”.

On a global level, the IMF argues that subsidies incentivise the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas, making climate change worse, while also being expensive, wasteful and skewed towards helping the rich more than the poor.

My message at today’s @wef session on climate and nature: pull back on harmful fossil fuel subsidies and use those resources for climate action. With action, we can leave a heathy planet to our children and grandchildren. #wef24 pic.twitter.com/Uh7TcyafHI

— Kristalina Georgieva (@KGeorgieva) January 17, 2024

In a bid to boost sustainable development, the Washington-based lender has encouraged governments to spend the savings from reducing their support for fossil fuels on climate action, healthcare or education. Zambia has used the money it has freed up for paying down the national debt and making public schools free.

Richard Bridle, a subsidies expert at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), generally supports such reforms, but said proper analysis must be carried out to identify those most affected and compensate them.

“Generally, the poor don’t have cars,” he said, but there are “particularly affected groups” whose business costs are exposed to fuel prices – like taxi drivers – and they require special attention.

“You’ve got to have steps being taken to understand the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable groups, and – where possible – mitigate that impact,” Bridle said.

Education not petrol

When Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema was elected in August 2021, he inherited $800 million a year of spending on fossil fuel subsidies – 4% of gross domestic product (GDP) – and debt of almost $1 billion which the government was failing even to pay interest on. 

He turned to the IMF for another loan – and in December 2021, Zambia was granted a $1.4-billion extended credit facility. 

Announcing this credit, the IMF’s then mission chief for Zambia, Allison Holland, said the conditions were that Zambia should cut what the IMF sees as “inefficient” subsidies, reduce its debt level, and increase spending on education and health. 

ZAMBIA’S #IMF PROGRAMME: Message from the IMF Mission Chief for Zambia, Ms. ALLISON HOLLAND.@S_Musokotwane @KGeorgieva @IMFAfrica pic.twitter.com/j17kCKck8t

— Ministry of Finance & National Planning – Zambia (@mofnpzambia) September 4, 2022

The IMF sees subsidies as “inefficient” if they hinder economic growth, exacerbate air pollution and climate change, and benefit those with high incomes. Holland said fuel subsidies were an example of spending that is “wasteful” and “doesn’t help the poor”.

In response, the government completely removed direct fossil fuel subsidies for 2022 and, in October that year, it restored taxes on petrol and diesel which the previous government had cut.

Hichilema also announced that public school education would be made free from January 2022. “When we removed fuel subsidies, this is what we intended for our people,” he said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Ever imagined that you’d be entering January without worrying about school fees? Jan 2022, if you have a child in public school, you won’t pay anything.
This is what we promised & have delivered. When we removed fuel subsidies, this is what we intended for our people. #Zambia pic.twitter.com/b49D9CTigV

— Hakainde Hichilema (@HHichilema) December 29, 2021

The government is planning to boost spending on social protection too. In 2020, it spent just 0.7% of GDP on welfare programmes like giving money and food to poor people, but by 2025 it plans to raise this to 1.6%, bringing it in line with the African average.

“Overall, for low-income households, the benefits from increased social spending should outweigh the impact from the removal of fuel and electricity subsidies,” a 2022 IMF analysis said.

Painful but necessary

During a reporting trip this March, Climate Home asked Zambia’s environment minister, a farmer and a rural teacher about the fuel subsidy cuts. All said the measures had been painful, making driving, farming and eating more expensive – but they saw them as necessary.

Green economy and environment minister Collins Nzovu said “there is going to be pain” from removing subsidies, but asked “were we going to keep accumulating debt or we’re going to say this is where we end?” 

In the village of Katoba in Lusaka province, secondary school teacher Constancy Mbwenya said spending on subsidies had previously diverted money from health and education.

The subsidy cuts are “a good policy”, he said, but required a period of adjustment. “People need to acclimatise to the new situation,” he explained. “That’s where the hassle is a bit, but then eventually people will understand the importance of removing the subsidies.”

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

At the steering wheel, Musanda and Kampamba welcomed free education – although they questioned whether there are enough teachers per pupil, and whether the children can afford to eat at home because of food inflation.

“It’s right because those who were not going to school… are now going to school,” said Musanda. But, he added, “it is difficult for us who used to survive on subsidies”.

IISD’s Bridle compared the situation to France’s “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protests, sparked in late 2018 when the French government tried to hike taxes on petrol and diesel and spend the money on climate action. 

The rural working class felt the costs of green policies were falling unfairly on them, while they failed to see direct benefits, Bridle said. The large-scale opposition to the policy forced the government into a U-turn and hurt the popularity of French President Emmanuel Macron.

Taxi driver Musanda said similar social unrest was unlikely in Zambia: “We are not used to doing protests.” Instead, many voters might look to bring in a new government at the country’s next elections in 2026, he noted.

According to Bridle, that risk is why governments often rush through reforms well ahead of the next election. 

In Zambia, less than one in 20 people own a vehicle, so the vast majority are less affected by the subsidy increase than Musanda.

Corn and peanut farmer Benson Chipungu poses in his field on March 7, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

Benson Chipungu, who spoke to Climate Home on his maize and peanut farm in Chongwe village, 50 km east of Lusaka, said it now costs him more to fill up his tractor with diesel – but he is willing to accept the change nonetheless.

“I think it’s fine because [the government] has made that decision knowing that maybe the subsidies were being a burden on the economy,” he said. “It can be painful – but if… they think it’s going to come out right, then it’s fine – you can try to hang in there.”

Travel for this story was funded by Catholic Relief Services.

The post Zambia’s fossil-fuel subsidy cuts help climate and kids – but taxi drivers suffer appeared first on Climate Home News.

In January, the two United Nations agencies that will manage the Santiago Network on loss and damage recommended that its headquarters should be in Nairobi as it is a relatively cheap location and home to other UN environmental bodies.

But during the first meeting of the network’s advisory board this week, at the four-star Warwick Hotel in Geneva, government climate negotiators rejected that proposal and instead chose the Swiss lakeside city as its headquarters.

The Advisory Board of the #SantiagoNetwork convenes for its inaugural meeting on 18-20 March in Geneva. Established in 2019, the Santiago Network aims to address loss & damage from climate change in vulnerable countries. Learn more: https://t.co/w9UwskGMW1#LossAndDamage pic.twitter.com/m3DTUCiT6g

— Adaptation Exchange by the NWP (@AdaptXChange) March 20, 2024

Last year, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Geneva as the third most expensive city in the world, twice as expensive as the 141st city on the list: Nairobi.

“Missed opportunity” for Global South

Swiss climate ambassador Felix Wertli called the decision an “honour”. “Geneva will offer great added value to the network” because of the wide range of relevant organisations in the city, while the network will in turn help strengthen that international ecosystem, he added.

But, according to a source who attended the meeting, African climate negotiators only accepted the decision grudgingly, asking for their reservations to be officially noted.

The source said Geneva had been pushed mainly by Latin American negotiators, who were angry that Panama had been ruled out for time-zone reasons and argued Nairobi was difficult to get to and did not have enough embassies.

At December’s Cop28 climate summit, the Swiss government said that, if the network was based in Geneva, it would donate 1 million Swiss francs ($1.1m), cover office costs and provide up to 10,000 francs ($11,000) per person for office materials and infrastructure. The network will spend about $8m a year. The source said the Swiss government had emailed board members last month, making the case for Geneva.

Mohammed Adow, the Nairobi-based founder of the Power Shift Africa think-tank, called the decision “yet another stitch-up by the Global North to keep power away from the places where the impacts of climate change are being felt”.

It “fails to put affected communities at the centre of decision-making” and further erodes the trust between the Global North and South that is needed to tackle climate change, he added.

Tasneem Essop, head of Climate Action Network International, told Climate Home it was “a real missed opportunity”. “It is unfortunate that wealthy countries can use their ability to resource infrastructure as a way to secure the presence of UN bodies in their territories,” she said.

Loss and damage expertise in demand

Governments agreed at Cop25 in 2019 to set up the Santiago Network and tasked it with “averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change” by collecting and sharing expert advice. Since then, the host organisation and location of the network’s secretariat has been debated at UN climate talks.

Small islands wanted the Barbados-based Caribbean Development Bank to host it, while African countries wanted the United Nations Office for Project Services (Unops) and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) to host it in Nairobi.

Both groups thought the other would not place sufficient priority – or have enough expertise – on the types of climate damage they are facing. For small islands, the main threats are rising sea levels and destructive storms, whereas Africa is grappling with more frequent and severe floods and droughts.

At Cop28, governments agreed that Copenhagen-based Unops would be the operational host, while Geneva-based UNDRR would organise the expert advice. The two agencies were commissioned to explore the best physical location for the network’s headquarters.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

They shortlisted five options that were safe enough for staff to bring their families, in the European and African time zones, and had a UNDRR presence: Nairobi, Geneva, the German city of Bonn, Brussels in Belgium and the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa.

They evaluated the five locations based on staff, office and set-up costs, “operational efficiency” criteria like security, infrastructure and the skills of the local workforce and other factors, including being close to other UN agencies. 

The reviewers recommended Nairobi as “the optimal location”, citing strong UN relations with the Kenyan government, “maximum time zone coverage” for co-ordinating with developing countries, and its hosting of other UN agencies.

Nairobi is the base for the UN’s African headquarters, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and its sustainable towns and cities programme (UN Habitat), as well as Unops and UNDRR’s African regional offices.

But now that the Santiago Network’s advisory board has opted for Geneva, Unops and UNDRR will look for office space in the city. The network will have eight full-time staff members in Geneva and four regional officers based around the world. 

A Swiss government spokesperson said Switzerland had “emphasised its stance of accepting any location choice deemed most beneficial to the affected regions”. It had suggested Geneva to advisory board members “as an alternative venue in case discussions over the future location stalled progress in the creation of the [Santiago Network] Secretariat and its important work”, the spokesperson added.

This article was updated on 21/3/2024 to include the Swiss government’s comment

The post African dismay at decision to host loss and damage advice hub in Geneva appeared first on Climate Home News.

With rich countries failing to deliver promised amounts of their taxpayers’ money to help developing countries tackle warming, global attention has turned to so-called “innovative” sources of climate finance – like levies on ships, planes or fossil fuel firms – to make up the shortfall.

But at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the United Nations’ shipping arm, governments have made clear they want the bulk of the revenue from a shipping emissions levy to go towards making it cheaper and easier for companies to put clean fuel in their vessels.

Sitting in the 7th-floor boardroom of the IMO’s riverside London headquarters, Arsenio Dominguez, the IMO’s new head, said “we need to focus on shipping as a sector, as that is what we regulate and that’s where we need to focus the efforts”.

IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez (March 18/IMO)

Asked if the money could go into a new UN fund to repair and reduce loss and damage from climate change, Dominguez told Climate Home: “That’s another UN agency – we have no remit there.” The fund, set up under UN climate change talks, is set to be hosted by the World Bank.

While conversations are at an early stage, Dominguez’s view is broadly echoed by the shipping industry – as well as by most governments that have so far submitted formal proposals at the IMO, although Pacific nations want some of the funds to be used outside of shipping.

Loss and damage fund board member Avinash Persaud, from Barbados, urged finance and environment ministers to intervene at the IMO to secure a share of any future shipping levy for addressing the harm caused by worsening extreme weather and rising seas.

Big-emitting sector

As it moves goods around the world, the international shipping industry emits a similar amount of greenhouse gases to Germany but has lagged behind when it comes to setting targets to reduce that pollution.

In July last year, governments at the IMO agreed to aim for net zero emissions in the sector “by or around, i.e. close to 2050” – with interim targets for 2030 and 2040.

At the same time, they agreed to look into putting a price on the industry’s emissions. On Monday, Dominguez said he was confident such a levy would be agreed by this time next year, although the details are still to be fought over.

While nations are split on how high the charge should be – with a group of island nations arguing for the highest tax of $150 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions – submissions from governments, industry and campaign groups all specify that the funds should be used mainly for cleaning up shipping.

Climate protesters dressed as mermaids lie on the floor at an IMO drinks reception last year (Photo credit: Guy Reece)

Kept in house?

A joint submission from the European Union, South Korea, the International Chamber of Shipping, the Environmental Defense Fund and others says a portion of the money should go to cleaning up shipping through investments, research funding and rewards for using clean fuels. 

The money should also address “disproportionate negative impacts” of the transition to clean shipping through training, technical advice and finance for green investments, it adds. An impact assessment is currently being carried out by experts under the guidance of the IMO.

Another joint submission from eight Pacific nations and Belize says the funds should be collected and spent using the principle of “the polluter pays”. That would require the shipping industry as the polluter to stop burning planet-heating fossil fuels “whilst making reparation for the impact on the environment, including people and communities”, the submission specifies.

A shipping negotiator from the climate-threatened Marshall Islands, Albon Ishoda, said the money should be “reinvested in the shipping industry to trigger research, development and deployment into zero-emission maritime technologies and to address climate mitigation efforts”, as well as in “an equitable transition” for small islands and the world’s poorest countries.

How to hold shipping financially accountable for its climate impacts

A Pacific negotiator, who was not authorised to speak to the media, told Climate Home that this transition funding should go to projects both in and outside of the shipping sector according to “the priority needs of the climate most vulnerable”.

A Canadian proposal says each ship’s operator should decide, within certain limits, where the money it pays should go.

International climate finance sought

Loss and damage expert Persaud said shipping industry executives – and even maritime ministers – could not be expected to support a plan to spend money raised from the sector outside the industry. “It’s almost beyond their remit,” he said.

Rather, finance and environment ministers “would need to be part of the push to get the world’s most significant economic system – the trading system – to contribute to the loss and damage caused by current and past emissions in the production, consumption and transportation of goods”, he added.

Friederike Roder from Global Citizen, an anti-poverty campaign group, agreed it is “not surprising” that the IMO and the shipping sector “are trying to retain the proceeds for themselves”. But, she said, the polluter pays principle should apply more broadly to at least part of the proceeds raised from a shipping emissions levy.

Aoife O’Leary, head of shipping-focused environmental think-tank Opportunity Green, also called for some of the money to be spent on protection from climate impacts, such as projects to help flood-hit communities in Bangladesh or build sea walls on Pacific islands.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

A global finance summit in Paris last year, attended by about 50 heads of state, came to a similar conclusion and led to the launch of a taskforce by France and Kenya to explore “innovative sources” of climate finance ahead of the Cop30 climate summit in late 2025.

Danish climate minister Dan Jorgensen, meanwhile, has called a shipping tax “a potential global source” of “international climate finance”.  

At the IMO, a working group of government shipping negotiators has been formed to hammer out how to raise and spend the money, with a decision expected by this time next year.

The post Shipping sector pushes to keep emissions-tax cash for itself appeared first on Climate Home News.

At international climate talks, developing countries are trying to draw a clear line between expected new funding to help them deal with the worsening “loss and damage” caused by climate change and existing finance for measures to adapt to more extreme weather and rising seas. But in drought-hit Zambia, that distinction is proving hard to make.

Climate-vulnerable nations want wealthy governments to provide additional money to repair and reduce loss and damage via a new fund set up at the Cop28 UN climate summit late last year, but fear that money could be diverted from budgets already earmarked for adaptation.

The lack of a globally agreed definition of what constitutes loss and damage will likely make hard to know whether that is happening – and there is already considerable confusion on the ground.

In a week-long trip around Zambia, Climate Home spoke about the issue with maize farmers in their dried-up fields, besuited bankers in air-conditioned offices, and the minister for green economy and environment around a polished boardroom table.

Asked what they wanted from the UN loss and damage fund, all mentioned one thing first: support for water supplies in the form of irrigation or rainwater collection, to lessen farmers’ reliance on increasingly scarce rainfall.

At the end of February, the president declared the severe drought affecting much of the country as a national emergency, blaming the El Niño weather phenomenon and climate change. He noted that the drought had destroyed nearly half the maize crop and was expected to continue.

Farmer Benson Chipungu’s healthy irrigated corn (foreground) and his dying rain-fed corn (background) on March 7, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

Reliance on rain

“The drought has hit us very bad,” said farmer Benson Chipungu at his house in Chongwe, a meagre batch of corn drying behind him during a rare and brief bout of rain. “The fields are a sorry sight.”

He said he had not followed developments at Cop28 closely, but added “if I was able to access [the loss and damage fund] then irrigation systems is the major thing”.

Clara Shangabile and Gertrude Nangombe, also maize farmers and members of the Katoba youth climate champions group, tuned into Cop28 on a TV at their local secondary school.

Like many corn producers Climate Home spoke to, they want help to move into what they call “gardening”, which means growing high-value crops that don’t need much land, like tomatoes, kale, green beans and peppers. While vegetables require more water per square metre, they use less overall because a smaller sized plot yields the same amount of money as growing corn.

Gertrude Nangombe (left) and Clara Shangabile (right) stand outside Katoba secondary school on March 6, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

Zambia’s green economy and environment minister, Collins Nzovu, who chaired the African Group of nations at Cop28, said the new loss and damage fund – whose arrangements are still being put in place and is unlikely to start disbursing money until 2025 – should contribute to expanding water harvesting and dams. “Food security won’t be guaranteed until we can grow our own crops,” he said.

Asked if these activities fall under adaptation or loss and damage, he told Climate Home: “they are one”. “We are being forced to adapt because of the change in climate,” he said. “I shouldn’t be building any dams if the weather pattern was the same as it was 50 years ago. But now we need that – it’s loss and damage.”

Green economy and environment minister Collins Nzovu, pictured in Lusaka on March 7, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

Blurred boundaries

Climate Home asked watchers of loss and damage talks in the UN climate process – including government negotiators and campaigners – whether irrigation should be classified as adaptation or loss and damage. Their answers were varied and nuanced.

Veteran campaigner Harjeet Singh said large-scale infrastructure projects like dams are adaptation, but community-based irrigation can be a response to loss and damage. He said it was tough to distinguish clearly between the two at the local level “due to frequent overlaps”.

Adao Soares Barbosa, who is a board member for the UN loss and damage fund and a finance negotiator for the Least Developed Countries group to which Zambia belongs, said rainwater harvesting and irrigation are generally viewed as adaptation, but if they are put in place to deal with loss of water induced by climate change, then they fall under loss and damage.

Zoha Shawoo, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, said it is “not very useful to draw strict boundaries” as the two types of activity are “super-blurred on the ground”. Ideally, she said, medium-term loss and damage funding for things like relocation of communities or financial compensation for lost crops would build on emergency humanitarian aid such as food parcels.

A sign in Lusaka’s central business district advertises maids on March 10, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

Support to help families struggling with drought migrate to other places would be useful in Katoba. Shangabile and Nangombe said many of their friends had moved to Lusaka to work as maids. Both are open to the idea of following them, but Nangombe worries about not being her own boss.

“If you break a cup or something, you’re fired,” she said through a translator, adding “the best is to identify something you can do as a person within the same community” – such as diversifying into vegetable production.

Mattias Soderberg, from humanitarian agency DanChurchAid, said helping these women settle into their new lives is the kind of thing the new loss and damage fund should be used for. His organisation, for example, has enabled Kenyan herders displaced by drought to learn to fish.

Board to decide

Zambians are also wondering who will be able to access the fund. In Katoba, Catholic Relief Services project officer Harrison Zimba said the community is setting up a cooperative to access grants and loans as a group, and hopes they will be able to get money from the loss and damage fund.

In Lusaka’s central business district, Cheyo Mwenechanya, head of agriculture at commercial bank Zanaco, told Climate Home his organisation also plans to tap the fund, probably working with government. He would like to channel the money into irrigation.

One certainty is that Zambia, as a member of the UN’s Least Developed Countries (LDC) group, will be eligible.

Wealthy governments have tried to restrict loss and damage funding to countries judged to be “particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”, as stated in the decision on operationalising the new fund approved at Cop28.

It is unclear how that will be defined in practice – but if recipients are limited to LDCs and small island developing states, then Zambia’s southern neighbours Zimbabwe and South Africa, which are suffering from the same drought, would not qualify.

A map of the world’s least developed countries, as defined by the UN. It does not include SIDs. (Photo credit: Unctad)

All these matters will be decided by the fund’s board. After a three-month delay caused mainly by rich nations squabbling over which of them should get seats, the board is now expected to hold its first meeting by the end of April – around the same time Zambia will be counting its paltry harvest.

The fund will need not just to agree on its rules, but also find new money – and sources of funding are likely to be scarce. The cost of loss and damage for developing countries is projected to reach $290 billion–$580 billion in 2030, according to a 2018 estimate. But wealthy governments pledged only around $0.7 billion at Cop28 in a first round of pledges, with the US offering no more than $17.5 million.

In Zambia, Minister Nzovu described those pledges as “exciting” but said “we need billions, trillions if we are going to develop our economies”. “Those who pollute more – the developed world, the Americans, must get out their cheques and pay for these losses and damages.”

Travel for this story was funded by Catholic Relief Services.

The post Is water provision in drought-hit Zambia climate ‘loss and damage’ or adaptation? appeared first on Climate Home News.