Switzerland has bought from Thailand the first batch of carbon offsets under the mechanism, created through the rollout of electric buses in the Thai capital Bangkok as part of a bilateral partnership.

It is the first-ever completed transaction under article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement and the parties involved hailed it as a “beacon moment for climate action” and “a very important milestone”.

But an umbrella group for Swiss charities said the switch to electric buses “would have most certainly happened” without the offsets, raising questions over their integrity.

The Swiss government plans to use the credits towards achieving its emissions reduction goals under the Paris Agreement. If the quality concerns are correct, that means Switzerland would be given a licence to pollute without funding real climate action.

The controversy raises questions over the regulation of the offsets traded under the system. Currently, there is no centralised oversight of the credits and an EU attempt to introduce tighter controls at Cop28 failed.

Swiss-Thai cooperation

Switzerland is one of the most active proponents of bilateral credit trading under article 6. The December transaction is part of a wider agreement signed between Switzerland and Thailand in early 2023.

While the credits will ultimately be used in government plans, private operators are tasked with carrying out the project.

The project is coordinated by South Pole, a Swiss company that is one of the world’s leading sellers of carbon credits and has been mired in controversy over the last year.

South African ministry uses opaque modelling to argue for weakening climate ambition

Energy Absolute, a Thai renewable energy company, is generating credits by converting thousands of petrol-fueled private buses in Bangkok to electric vehicles. Switzerland’s Klik Foundation, which represents fossil fuel importers in the country, is funding the programme through the purchase of credits.

Swiss law requires fuel importers to compensate for part of their carbon dioxide emissions. The Klik Foundation buys credits on the companies’ behalf and finally transfers them to the federal government, which will count them towards its emission reduction targets.

The Thai electric bus scheme is among dozens the Swiss group is looking to implement across the world.

Additionality doubts

The Thai project developers claim that, without the funding guaranteed by the sale of offsets, the switch to electric buses would have not been economically viable.

So the offsets will cut emissions beyond what would have happened anyway, they argue. This is known as ‘additionality’.

Alliance Sud disputes this, casting doubts over the integrity of the credits. In a research dossier, it claimed “additionality is at best non-transparent, and at worst, non-existent”.

Analysis: Ten climate questions for 2024

Alliance Sud said the economic justification for the project failed to take into account the long-term benefits of direct investment from the Energy Absolute group, which specialises in renewable energy and electric vehicle manufacturing.

An e-bus operated by Thai Smile Bus, the beneficiary of the offsetting scheme. Photo: Patiparn.Nice2002bkk

It found that the same transport operator targeted by the project had already been running electric buses in Bangkok well before the start of the offsetting scheme – as early as 2021, over a year before the start of the project.

In a statement, the Klik Foundation did not address the buses seen in 2021 but says “the first 120 buses” seen in 2022 were just a pilot programme.

“This project shows it is basically impossible to have a guarantee that these certificates can be a real substitute of domestic emission reductions which Switzerland should instead focus on,” Delia Berner, an international climate policy analyst at Alliance Sud, told Climate Home. “Switzerland is leading in a negative way”.

‘Pure speculation’

Mischa Classen, an independent carbon market consultant and former director of the Klik Foundation, disagrees with Alliance Sud’s analysis.

“From my knowledge, Thailand has no policy intervention that would support private bus operators to switch to electric, which is the main additionality argument in this project. There’s no economic reason for a private company to use [electric] buses that are more expensive than others”, he added.

A spokesperson for the Klik Foundation told Climate Home the Alliance Sud’s claims on additionality are “pure speculation”. “Energy Absolute needs the financial support through the purchase of credits to make the project feasible”, they said.

A spokesperson for the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment (FOEN) said that only offsets that generate additional emissions cuts would be approved, following checks with the environmental authority of the host country. “In the view of the FOEN, as well as the Thai authority, this is the case with the e-bus project in Bangkok”, it added.

Swiss government plans

Switzerland has been among the most active countries in signing preliminary agreements for the bilateral exchange of offsets. The government expects to achieve a third of its total emission reduction by 2030 through projects abroad.

Azerbaijan appoints state oil company veteran as Cop29 president

It is pushing ahead with the rollout of these deals despite a lack of certainty over the rules governing the mechanism.

Talks over article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement collapsed at Cop28 following a bitter dispute over integrity, with the European Union pushing for stricter rules and the USA wanting more flexibility. 

While negotiators will try again to strike a deal at Cop29 in November, countries can still go ahead with their agreements under an initial rulebook agreed in Glasgow.

Classen says Switzerland’s first transaction is adding to positive momentum for countries that are already seriously interested in Article 6.

“It is the final result of a long, hard process and it is not a decision you can just switch on or off. You need well-designed bilateral agreements setting minimum standards and a lot of political labour to establish carbon market regulations. The case of Thailand shows that it’s possible”, he added. 

The post First ever Paris Agreement offsets face integrity questions appeared first on Climate Home News.

The two lawsuits, heard today in Strasbourg, accuse the governments of France and Switzerland of breaching the human rights of their citizens by not doing enough to cut national emissions.

It is the first time climate change has come before the European Court of Human Rights, but is unlikely to be the last.

The lawsuits were filed by a former French mayor and a group of Swiss seniors, all of whom argue that their governments have breached their rights to life and to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judgements could set a “pivotal” precedent for climate action, campaigners told Climate Home News, as they could make states take more ambitious climate action as part of their human rights obligations.

International Court of Justice to advise states on climate duties: ‘A turning point for climate justice’

Elders facing extreme heat

In the first case, an association of 2,038 older women called the KlimaSeniorinnen, as well as four individual applicants, argue that they are particularly vulnerable to climate change.

They presented evidence to the court that older people – particularly women – are more likely to die during heatwaves.

The group, which has an average age of 73, first petitioned the domestic courts for action but its case was dismissed.

Switzerland does not dispute that climate change is real and could affect human health. But the government’s legal team told the court its carbon emissions could not be directly linked to the health of older women and said they were not the only ones affected.

Furthermore, it maintained that its existing climate targets and policies are sufficient and said it should not be asked to do more if it was not technically and economically feasible.

Jessica Simor, a lawyer representing the KlimaSeniorinnen, said Switzerland itself had never assessed the fairness of its climate targets and policies, pointing to independent research by Climate Action Tracker that deems the country’s current efforts ‘insufficient’.

Vidéo : Audience Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz et autres c. Suisse https://t.co/fFghE94vTl | Video: Hearing Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland https://t.co/LQsm3aMC56#ECHR #CEDH #ECHRhearing pic.twitter.com/JSJASyX5em

— ECHR CEDH (@ECHR_CEDH) March 29, 2023

Switzerland currently aims to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2030, which is lower than its formal international commitment of cutting “at least 50%” of all greenhouse gas emissions by the same date.

In 2021, the Swiss government held a referendum to align its domestic target with the more ambitious 50% cut, but voters rejected it.

Marc Willers, a barrister representing the KlimaSeniorinnen, told the court that blaming the referendum was “plainly a bad argument” and claimed Switzerland was responsible for its violations “irrespective of how they came about”.

The KlimaSeniorinnen want Switzerland to cut its domestic emissions by above 60% below 1990 levels by 2030, which they say is more in line with similar nations and the EU itself.

Willers said Switzerland’s approach undermined global trust and efforts to combat climate change. If a nation as rich and technologically advanced as Switzerland does not do its fair share, he argued, “what hope is there that other countries will step up?”

Climate victim?

In the second lawsuit, against the government of France, the former mayor of the commune of Grande-Synthe argues that he is personally vulnerable because his home is at risk from flooding.

Damien Carême, now a green MEP for France, had also brought a domestic case against France to the country’s top administrative court. In 2021, the court ordered the government to act immediately to meet its climate commitments, or risk potential fines.

But Carême is challenging the French court’s assertion that he is not directly affected by the country’s failure to take sufficient action on climate change.

Revealed: How Shell cashed in on dubious carbon offsets from Chinese rice paddies

The French government contends that Carême should not be considered a victim under the law and asked for the case to be struck out.

Diégo Colas, director of legal affairs at the French foreign ministry, told the court that France had recently enhanced its emission reduction measures and compliance with its objectives was already being scrutinised by the domestic courts.

New cases coming

The 17-judge panel will now consider its ruling, which is not expected until next year.

In the meantime, the court will hear a third climate case, filed by six Portuguese young people against 32 countries, including all EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, the UK, Ukraine and Turkey, which has been scheduled for the autumn.

The group, now aged between 11 and 23, claims that government inaction on climate change discriminates against young people and poses a tangible risk to life. It refers in particular to forest fires that killed more than one hundred people in Portugal in 2017 and which were worsened by climate change.

Gerry Liston, senior lawyer at Global Action Legal Network, which is supporting the Portuguese case, said the lawsuits gave the court “power to direct a major acceleration in European action on the climate crisis”.

Sébastien Duyck, human rights and climate campaign manager for the Center for International Environmental Law, described the hearings as a “pivotal moment” in the fight against climate change and said the resulting judgments would be carefully monitored by governments and civil society organisations around the world.

“They have the potential to set an influential legal precedent that would further confirm that states must take more adequate action against climate change as a matter of their human rights obligations,” said Duyck.

If the court finds human rights have been breached, it could open the floodgates to similar litigation before the European Court of Human Rights and national courts in all member states of the Council of Europe, said Annalisa Savaresi, associate professor in international environmental law at the University of Eastern Finland.

NOTE: Expenses for attending the court hearing were supported by a grant from the Foundation for International Law for the Environment

The post European court hears landmark lawsuits that could shape climate policy appeared first on Climate Home News.

This week, the European Commission has proposed a joint EU exit from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), over fears its protections for fossil fuel investments will slow down climate action.

The United Kingdom’s government said it is “closely monitoring the situation”. The Swiss energy ministry’s Jean-Christophe Fueeg told Climate Home his country, which is not an EU member state, is not leaving.

The Swiss position has sparked fears that fossil fuel companies will restructure their investments through Switzerland in order to keep suing governments over climate action.

E3G campaigner Jonny Peters said: “As the EU looks set to exit the Energy Charter Treaty, there is certainly a risk of companies and law firms treaty shopping [in] Switzerland.”

We’re not leaving

The Swiss energy ministry’s head of international energy affairs Jean-Christophe Fueeg told Climate Home on Thursday: “No change in Switzerland’s position, especially given that the EU has not come to a position yet.”

Over the last few years, Switzerland has not supported the EU’s push to remove fossil fuel protections from the ECT and did not join the EU and UK in last year announcing a phase-out of fossil fuel protections under the treaty.

Fueeg added: “Just as food for thought: Would you think that Swiss investors, who have billions of assets in the EU (much of it in renewables), would appreciate seeing their investors’ protection rights waived by a Swiss exit?”

Friends of the Earth campaigner Paul De Clerck told Climate Home the treaty is “by  no means crucial for renewable investors” and its “main goal is still the protection of fossil fuels”.

Race to the bottom

Kyla Tienhaara, who researches trade and the environment at Queen’s University in Canada, told Climate Home she was concerned that EU-based fossil fuel companies will structure their through Switzerland so that they can still be protected under ECT.

Fueeg has previously dismissed this concern, telling Climate Home last July that “arbitration courts tend to reject claims by investors which have opportunistically relocated to file a claim”.

A 2020 study published in the British Institute for Comparative Law found that depended on the timing. While arbitrators took a dim view of restructuring after a dispute had arisen, preemptive restructuring usually worked. “A majority of tribunals find they have jurisdiction despite the respondents’ objections to restructuring,” its authors wrote.

“The concern with the ECT is that investors will restructure now that they know the EU is leaving, well in advance of specific claims,” said Tienhaara.

Last year, US law firm Jones Day recommended fossil fuel companies restructure “to ensure they are protected by an investment treaty”.

What is the ECT?

The ECT was set up in 1991 to protect foreign investments in energy in the former Soviet Union. Its members span Europe, Turkey, Central Asia and Japan.

The treaty protects investments in any form of energy – both fossil fuels and renewables. Fossil fuel companies have used it to sue governments over climate action.

Fossil fuel companies have been awarded around €500m ($538m) under the treaty while renewable investors have got about twice that amount.

A 2020 study by former ECT employee turned critic Yamina Saheb found that the treaty puts governments at risk of up to $1.4tn in compensation claims by 2050 from fossil fuel investors.

Reform attempts

Between 2020 and 2022, the European Union tried to persuade ECT members to allow governments to choose what energy investments they protected.

Last June, they succeeded in convincing reluctant nations like Japan. The EU and UK announced they would end protection for new fossil fuel investments and to phase out protection for existing fossil fuel investments in ten years time.

This was a slower phase-out than climate campaigners and some EU governments hoped for but it was a compromise between EU member states.

At the end of last year, several big European countries said they would quit the treaty despite the reforms. The reforms were never ratified and so are unlikely to be put into effect if the EU leaves.

Earlier this week, the European Commission said it would propose a coordinated exit from the treaty. This proposal would need the support of at least 15 EU member states.

Anti-ECT campaigner Yamina Saheb said: “Now that the [European Commission] is campaigning for the withdrawal, it is very likely that the withdrawal will be voted [through].”

Sunset clause

The treaty’s 20-year sunset clause means that fossil fuel companies from other ECT states will still be allowed to use the ECT to sue EU countries until at least 2043.

Italy left the treaty in 2016. But last year, a British oil and gas company used it to force the Italian government to pay €190m ($204m) over a decision to ban oil drilling near Italy’s shoreline.

The EU governments who are pushing to leave hope to enforce a joint agreement stopping fossil fuel companies based in the EU from suing other EU states.

But they would need to agree such a deal with other willing treaty members to avoid future lawsuits such as from Switzerland, Japan and – if it remains a member – the United Kingdom.

A recent paper by the European Commission’s said that non-EU ECT members have shown no interest in ending protections for their fossil fuel investments in the EU.

The post Switzerland won’t follow EU out of controversial energy treaty: official appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a referendum held on Sunday, 52% of voters opposed a revision to the country’s climate law, which would have increased taxes on polluting activities like flying and driving.

Proposals included a levy of 30-120 francs ($32-$129) on airline tickets for flights taking off from Switzerland and raising a tax on petrol and diesel from 0.05 to 0.12 francs a litre.

The measures were designed to help Switzerland meet its target to reduce domestic emissions by 37.5% between 1990 and 2030.

A further 12.5% of emissions cuts, from the 1990 level, are to come from Swiss-funded emissions reductions abroad. The reforms would have increased the funding available for these programmes by increasing taxes on motorists.

Norway eyes expansion of oil and gas industry

Climate Analytics analyst Ryan Wilson told Climate Home News the result was “upsetting” as it would delay climate action, making it harder to meet the 2030 target.

“I hope the message [the Swiss government] take is to aim higher and not to roll back to something less ambitious,” he said.

The dominant criticism of the reforms came from the far-right Swiss People’s Party. They argued carbon taxes would mean ordinary Swiss people had to pay more to drive, fly and heat their homes.

Switzerland’s per capita emissions from flying are the ninth highest in the world, nearly ten times the global average, according to the International Council of Clean Transportation.

To reduce the cost to the public, two-thirds of the money raised by carbon taxes would have been spent subsidising health insurance premiums. The remainder would have been spent on green measures.

Swiss economics professor Julia Steinberger blamed “a very slick disinformation machine pitting any climate action against the purported ‘best interests’ of Swiss consumer/citizens”.

Wilson said the vote showed that environmentalists need to show that green measures won’t cost poorer people. Opposition to reforms was strongest in rural areas.

Covid-19: UK to provide vaccines for Cop26 delegates

Zurich-based climate scientist Robert Rohde said that the campaign in favour of the reforms was complacent, “luke-warm and reluctant” and “offered vague and lofty rhetoric about social goals”.

He tweeted: “This gets to a fundamental political concern with taxes on fossil fuels. The pain (higher taxes) is concrete, while the benefit (climate protection) is nebulous. As much as carbon taxes might make sense economically, they can be a hard sell politically.”

According to the World Bank, Switzerland’s per capita emissions are lower than the world average.

These figures do not take into account the emissions from products consumed in Swizterland. Like most rich countries, Switzerland’s emissions are far higher if these are included.

In 2018, the French “yellow vests” protested against a fuel tax. President Emmanuel Macron reacted by asking a citizens’ climate assembly to draft new greener laws “in a spirit of social justice”.

The post Swiss public reject climate law over cost of living fears appeared first on Climate Home News.

While negotiators at UN climate talks have yet to overcome deep divisions on the design of a global carbon market, a framework is in place for countries to strike bilateral deals.

The deal signed on Tuesday allows Peru to fund sustainable development projects, while Switzerland gets to count the resulting emissions cuts against its national targets.

Peru’s environment minister Kirla Echegarry said the deal took two years to negotiate and was “an example of how cooperation between countries can facilitate the fulfillment of our climate goals and —at the same time— bring prosperity as well as well-being for our citizens.”

Fate of UN-led carbon market to be decided behind closed doors

Gilles Dufrasne, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch, said the agreement had “several good elements” and established principles that “could form a basis for the ongoing article 6 negotiations”.

Dufrasne praised the provision to avoid double counting, so Peru and Switzerland cannot both claim credit for the same emissions reductions.

On the other hand, Dufrasne said: “What we’re still missing is a system to go beyond the zero-sum nature of offsetting.” This means that the system should reduce pollution rather than move it around.

Dufrasne added that a grievance mechanism was needed where any stakeholder could make a complaint about a project. “This has been missing in international carbon markets until now,” he said.

The agreement gives the Swiss government the option to transfer the rights to retire the offsets to local government or to private companies headquartered in Switzerland.

Despite socialist scepticism, Cuba shows interest in carbon trading

The money for these projects comes from Swiss motor fuel importers. In practice, they can pass these costs on to their customers, who are charged a levy when filling up their cars. Transport accounts for around a third of the small, rich nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The transactions are to be managed by the Klik foundation, which was set up by the Swiss CO2 act to find 35-54 million tonnes worth of carbon offsets up to 2030. The Swiss and Peruvian governments will determine which activities are eligible to generate carbon credits.

Klik’s international co-head Mischa Classen told Climate Home that it is considering initiatives like a $50m green credit line for small and medium-sized businesses to invest in energy efficiency and electric buses.

Classen said the Swiss government has ruled out investment in nuclear power and “they don’t want to refurbish coal power – not to prolong the business case of coal, oil and gas”.

He said that the Swiss government was in talks with several other countries that could sign a similar agreement to Peru. “The next in line” he said was Ghana and talks are ongoing with Senegal, Morocco, Thailand, Mexico, Chile and Argentina. “These processes are not always straightforward” though, he warned.

Balooning debt cripples poor countries’ hopes of green recovery from Covid

In 2015, Switzerland pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% between 1990 and 2030. The government intends to meet up to a quarter of the goal through international offsets. According to Climate Watch Data, Switzerland’s GHG emissions reduced by 8% between 1990 and 2017.

Counting offsets towards reduction targets is controversial. While countries like Switzerland, Norway and Canada have indicated they will use them, others like Finland and the UK have said they will not.

Peru is one of the Amazon nations and around half of its emissions come from land use, land use change and forestry.

The post Peru and Switzerland sign ‘world first’ carbon offset deal under Paris Agreement appeared first on Climate Home News.

In 2015, the small land-locked country was the first in the world to submit its formal climate plan for cutting emissions until 2030 to the UN, months before the Paris climate deal was adopted.

The Paris Agreement expects countries to set ever more ambitious goals to limit global temperature rise “well below 2C”.

Under the 2015 plan, Switzerland pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2030, including by investing heavily in carbon-cutting projects abroad. At the time, it also set an indicative emissions reduction target of 70-85% by 2050.

“Switzerland hereby confirms its nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement submitted in February 2015,” the government said in the letter.

It added: “Switzerland is working on an NDC, which will be enhanced by reflecting the decision of the Federal Council to aim for net-zero emissions by 2050”. It did not give a timetable.

Climate Home News originally understood the letter to mean Switzerland was reaffirming the NDC as a minimum baseline but that its ambition would be raised when the net zero 2050 target is set. “Enhance” is regularly used in UN documents to mean increased ambition.

Franz Perrez, Switzerland’s chief climate negotiator, told Climate Home News the country “did not announce that we will increase our 2030 target”. Instead, he said, Switzerland was working on a communication “which will reflect our new indicative greenhouse gas-neutrality target for 2050”.

This, he said, would bring Switzerland’s climate plan in line with the 1.5C report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018.

World faces ‘decisive decade’ to fix global warming, former UN climate chief says

Jürg Staudenmann, a climate expert at Alliance Sud, a Swiss development policy think-tank, said the plan “constitutes anything but an ‘enhanced NDC’ in the sense of ratcheting up or ‘raising ambition’.”

He also said that the Federal Council’s goal of net zero emissions was still vague and “only constitutes a mere ‘long-term pledge’.”

So far, only the Marshall Islands, Suriname and Norway have issued new NDCs, despite UN hopes for a groundswell of new submissions early this year to galvanise momentum before a UN climate summit in Glasgow in November, known as Cop26.

The summit is the first five-year milestone of the Paris Agreement that was adopted in 2015.

A theoretical deadline to submit updated plans to the UN by 9 February was missed by the rest of the world.

Switzerland is in the process of revising a key piece of climate legislation, known as the CO2 Act. A draft was rejected by the country’s parliament in December 2018 and a more ambitious text is now going through the legislative process.

“The Swiss parliament currently discusses the revision of the CO2 law and hence the policies and measures for the implementation of the NDC,” the Swiss notice to the UN said.

The law would put in place a number of measures to achieve the country’s climate goals such as increasing a carbon levy if emissions reductions objectives are not met, extending the levy to air travel and ramping up funding for energy efficiency measures in the building sector.

The notice added the country will “submit the information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding” of its climate plan “as soon as the revised CO2 act has been adopted”.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Switzerland’s Federal Council previously said it planned to finalise the country’s 2050 climate strategy by December 2020, when it could be submitted to the UN.

A timeline published by the Swiss environment and energy department in September anticipated the new climate act to come into effect on 1 January 2021.

That could delay the submission of the new plan into next year, Marlene Kammerer, a researcher at the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern, told Climate Home News.

The timing means “a new NDC will probably not be submitted before the next Cop,” she said, but the approval of the act is “looking good”.

However, a senior Swiss official said the legislation could be adopted by parliament in the summer if no referendum was requested. That would then leave enough time for Switzerland to submit its new 2050 climate plan by Cop26.

Under a decision text drafted alongside the Paris Agreement, countries must “communicate or update” their climate plans to 2030 and submit a long-term decarbonisation strategy “by 2020”.

The deadline has been widely interpreted as the climate talks in Glasgow due to start on 9 November, but in practice countries could submit new climate plans until the end of December.

According to climate jurists, there is no legal requirement on a majority of countries which already have 2030 emissions reduction goals to increase their climate plans this year – a sign of the ambiguities surrounding  the legal interpretations of the Paris Agreement and its accompanying decision text.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative at the World Resources Institute think tank, told CHN that despite “ambiguities” in the timeframe to submit a new climate plan, the outcome of the climate talks in Madrid “clearly laid out an expectation that countries will need to come forward with a stronger and enhanced climate plan” before Cop26.

There is a strong scientific and public pressure case for increasing climate plans at the start of the 2020s. According to UN Environment, the world needs to cut emissions by 7.6% per year throughout the decade to limit global temperature to 1.5C – the tougher goal of the Paris Agreement.

The UN and climate campaigners have called on countries to submit enhanced 2030 targets and announce plans to reach net zero emissions by Cop26.

The next nine months will be a critical test for the ratchet-up mechanism built in the 2015 Paris Agreement to ensure countries bridge the gap between current levels of commitments and what is needed to achieve the climate accord’s global temperature goals.

Under the accord, successive climate plans “will represent a progression beyond the party’s then current NDC” and “reflect its highest possible ambition”.

The story was corrected on 4/3/2020 to reflect the fact Switzerland says it did not announce an enhancement of its 2030 target.

The post Switzerland reaffirms 2030 climate plan to UN, works on net zero 2050 goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Swiss glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate, say researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Pic: Pier_Luc_Bergeron/Flick)

By Ed King

Switzerland has become the first country to formally communicate its contribution to a UN climate change deal: 50% greenhouse gas cuts on 1990 levels by 2030.

Released on Friday, the Swiss government says 30% of those cuts will be achieved within the country, with the remaining 20% through carbon markets or other forms of offsets.

“This objective of a 50% reduction in emissions reflects Switzerland’s responsibility for climate warming and the potential cost of emissions reduction measures in Switzerland and abroad over the 2020-2030 period,” says the Swiss communication.

“Switzerland, which is responsible for 0.1% of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions and, based on the structure of its economy, has a low level of emissions (6.4 tonnes per capita per year), will use emissions reduction measures abroad to reduce the cost of emissions reduction measures during the period 2020-2030.”

NGOs reaction to #Switzerland #Paris2015 pledge: fair commitment wld have implied -60% domestic (double than currently proposed). #COP21

— Sébastien Duyck (@duycks) February 27, 2015

Documents sent to the media say the target is “compatible” with efforts to limit warming to below 2C above pre-industrial levels. The government is also discussing a long term target to reduce emissions 70-85% by 2050 on 1990 levels.

In an email to RTCC Switzerland’s chief climate negotiator Franz Perrez described the submission as “ambitious and forward looking”.

“Given the reality of Switzerland with very low per capita emissions (with approximately 6 t per capita less than world average) and thus limited availability of cost-effective short term domestic emission reduction potential, the use of international credits meeting high environmental standards will allows Switzerland to contribute to quick emission reductions, while at the same time to continue its ambitious pathway towards further reduction of domestic emissions,” he said.

Jürg Staudenmann, a climate advisor to the Alliance Sud NGO, said the Swiss effort was “disappointing” and called for more clarity on how the 30% domestic emissions cuts would be achieved.

“There is no word about climate finance and support for developing countries,” Staudenmann said, “Switzerland has a responsibility and capacity to support developing countries.”

Switzerland’s announcement comes two days after the European Commission issued its own plans for a contribution to a UN climate deal, set to be signed in Paris this December.

It proposed Europe should aim for 40% carbon cuts on 1990 levels by 2030, although in a letter seen by RTCC, the UK’s climate chief Ed Davey accused the Commission of watering down its ambition.

All major economies have been asked to submit their ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ before October 1 this year, after which the UN will assess whether the world is on course to avoid dangerous levels of warming.

The post Switzerland issues pledge for UN climate change pact appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mexico, Switzerland and South Korea form a team of misfits in UN climate talks (Pics: Flickr/in pulverem reverteris, Derek, Jed Scattergood)

By Megan Darby

International climate talks are typically presented as a struggle between the developed and developing worlds.

The reality is more complex, but there is an undeniable tension between those rich countries responsible for the bulk of historic emissions and the emerging economies that have an increasing impact on the climate.

Much has been made of last year’s US-China pact straddling that historic divide and its significance in unblocking agreement at the last round of climate talks in Lima. Less is said about a small negotiating bloc that has been steadily influential in bridging the same gap since 2000.

The environmental integrity group (EIG) is made up of Mexico, Switzerland and South Korea, plus the European principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco. Negotiators for these unlikely allies tell RTCC the partnership, borne out of frustration with the process, can be a strong advocate for progressive climate policies.

Spanning three continents and three time zones, as well as the firewall between developed and emerging economies, the group has a reach like no other.

As the European Union seeks to position itself as the bridge-builder in UN climate talks ahead of this December’s critical summit in Paris, this small but significant group could give them a run for their money.

Swiss initiative

The group was conceived during negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, when countries not part of any bloc were shut out of certain conversations.

Franz Perrez, environmental ambassador for Switzerland, explains: “There was a moment when negotiations moved to a smaller setting, where only some groups were permitted to engage and we were not part of that.”

His predecessor was escorted out of the room, while representatives of formal groups stayed – an “unacceptable” situation to Switzerland.

Famously for its neutrality, Switzerland never joined the European Union that surrounds it on all sides. Nor did it agree, at the time, with the Umbrella Group, which covered most other developed countries including the US, Australia and Japan.

“These groups did not feel like home,” says Perrez.

So Switzerland declared its intention to form a new group and invited other unaffiliated countries to join.

Outgrowing the G77

For Mexico and South Korea, the issue was that their economies had outgrown the G77, which represented the developing world.

Now firmly in the upper-middle income category, Mexico was accepted into the OECD in 1994 and South Korea followed two years later.

When it came to climate talks, Roberto Dondisch, director general of global issues in Mexico’s foreign office, says: “We were being left out of the process.

“Although Mexico carries weight, it is not the same as having an official group.”

The dynamics of UN climate talks have changed since the EIG formed in 2000. The importance attached to formal blocs has waned and several unofficial alliances claim a similar status.

For example in 2012 six Latin American countries including Peru, Costa Rica and Panama formed AILAC, which might seem a more obvious home for Mexico.

But while Mexico consults with AILAC, its primary allegiance remains with the EIG.

The EIG is valuable as a “microcosm” of the talks, says Dondisch. “If we can get together and agree on something internally, often we can get to deals that are acceptable for almost everyone.

“That was certainly the case [at the last round of UN talks] in Lima, where some of the language that you see in the final document came out of the EIG.”

Strength in diversity

Jai-chul Choi, South Korea’s ambassador for climate change, echoes that view. It is “a group of diversity” he says, that can help to find common ground between blocs with different interests.

“When we have internal consultation among the EIG, the negotiation is very tough,” he says.

“Korea plays a sort of mediating role between Switzerland and Mexico and finally we reach a common text.”

For example in Lima, Choi says the group helped forge a last-minute compromise on “loss and damage”. This was the contentious issue that dominated the previous year’s talks in Warsaw, of compensation to countries experiencing climate impacts they cannot adapt to.

Switzerland, in common with most of the developed world, was resistant to its inclusion in the Lima deal, while Mexico was strongly in favour.

The formula they came up with, which acknowledged the Warsaw decision without adding to it, was enough to keep the show on the road.

Ambition

What keeps the group together, despite its members’ different interests, is a determination to play a constructive role in the talks.

“On certain areas, we have very similar positions,” says Perrez. “The name ‘environmental integrity group’ has become a guiding principle.”

Each country boasts a relatively ambitious climate policy.

In line with the European Union, Switzerland is targeting a 20% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.

Mexico has been among the most vocal champions of green growth and last year became the first Latin American country to introduce a carbon tax.

Dondisch says: “We don’t see green development as a hurdle, we see it as an area of opportunity.”

And South Korea this month launched Asia’s first national carbon market – a “big strike” for the country’s climate policy, Choi says.

“At the moment, Korean society is very dependent on fossil fuels. By launching the carbon market, every Korean industry is making some complaint but we want to give them a signal on a long term basis.

“As a country, in particular without any energy sources, we have to move towards a low carbon economy.”

Broad participation

In Paris, the group is seeking a legally binding deal with “broad participation”.

That means refusing to perpetuate a hard division between rich and poor. Or to be more precise, a division between the “annex 1” countries expected to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the rest.

Annex 1 is a list of countries who were in the OECD back in 1991 plus former Soviet states. The EIG agrees with the US that a more nuanced view of countries’ climate obligations is in order.

“Differentiation has to reflect the realities,” says Perrez. That means emerging economies, with their increasingly substantial emissions, shouldering some of the responsibility. (For Liechtenstein and Monaco, with a combined population of 75,000, it also means cutting small countries some slack.)

The EIG, with its members including non-annex 1 countries, can make that argument with more credibility than a purely developed bloc.

China, despite committing to limit its own emissions, has been curiously reluctant to require other emerging economies to do the same. In Lima, it continued to back the “like-minded developing countries,” which opposed changes to the way differentiation was framed.

“The outcome of a Paris conference should be balanced in terms of development need and environmental integrity,” says Choi.

“The EIG is in the best position to facilitate the negotiations due to its membership.”

South Korea is upping its engagement with China and Singapore, he adds.

Listening

The group still has its internal differences, particularly on issues like cash support for poor countries to cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

They agree on broadening the donor base, with all members contributing to the UN-backed Green Climate Fund.

But Switzerland was branded “fossil of the day” by NGOs in Lima for its opposition to legally binding commitments on climate finance.

“It was important we didn’t have expectations that would never be fulfilled,” says Perrez in Switzerland’s defence.

It is not the biggest or most economically mighty group, but its unique geographic and economic mix mean it can punch above its weight.

“None of us have the impression the world cannot move without us,” says Perrez. “We have to listen to others outside our group in order to have an impact.”

The post Meet the unlikely climate allies bridging divides in UN talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: L_K_M/Flickr)

By Tim Radford

Alpine ecosystems are on the rise. Between 2003 and 2010, plants have managed to scramble up another eight metres of mountain slope.

On the way up, they were overtaken by butterflies, which collectively gained another 38 metres of higher ground.  Alpine birds in turn fluttered an average of 42 metres higher.

Tobias Roth and colleagues from the University of Basel and the Petite Camargue Alsacienne research station at St Louis in France report in PLOS One, the journal of the Public Library of Science, that, at least in the short term, alpine landscapes offer safe habitats in a warming world.

“An average of eight metres difference in eight years and across all plant species is quite impressive for the often not very mobile plant communities”, said Valentin Amrhein, one of the authors.

“The results show that the biological impacts of climate change will not only become apparent in the long term. Animals and plants are already today adapting to the rising temperatures at a surprising pace.”

UK parallels

British researchers have just confirmed that British butterflies have been moving north as average temperatures increase. But, as always with surveys of biodiversity, the picture is complicated by other factors.

Natural cycles of explosive growth and dramatic failure are regular features of bird and animal populations, driven by the numbers of predators and the availability of prey.

Habitats change, and so do farming practices, and these changes too affect species numbers. But average temperatures also affect farming practices and natural habitats. So the Swiss research was another attempt to try to disentangle some of the influences on local fauna and flora.

The researchers worked their way through data collected from 214 sample plots between 2003 and 2010, between altitudes of 500 and 3,000 metres, covering all the major ecosystems of the region.

Puzzles remain

Between 1995 and 2010, summer temperatures rose in Switzerland by about 0.07% each year at all altitudes. The researchers found no decrease in the variation of ecological communities in their temperature niches, which, they say, suggests that global warming has not led to more homogenous ecosystems.

At low altitudes, there was a shift towards warm-dwelling species for all three groups. The high altitude birds continued to move uphill, but plants and butterflies showed no significant changes above the tree line, for reasons that remain puzzling.

“It is possible that land-use related changes in habitats near the tree line outweigh the effects of climate warming. For example, many alpine pastures have been abandoned in recent years”, said Tobias Roth.

“It is also possible that alpine plants are better protected against changing climatic conditions, due to the highly varied surface of alpine landscapes.”

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

The post Swiss wildlife heads up the Alps to escape warming appeared first on Climate Home News.