15/07/2016

Pacific ​​Islands Nations Consider World's First Treaty To Ban Fossil Fuels

The Guardian

Treaty under consideration by 14 countries would ban new coalmines and embraces 1.5C target set at Paris climate talks 
The Solomon Islands and other Pacific island nations are under threat from climate change. Photograph: Oliver Forstner/Alamy Stock Photo 
The world's first international treaty that bans or phases out fossil fuels is being considered by leaders of developing Pacific islands nations after a summit in the Solomon Islands this week.
The leaders of 14 countries agreed to consider a proposed Pacific climate treaty, which would bind signatories to targets for renewable energy and ban new or the expansion of coalmines, at the annual leaders' summit of the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF).
Mahendra Kumar, climate change advisor to PIDF, told the Guardian the treaty proposal was received very positively by the national leaders. "They seemed convinced that this is an avenue where the Pacific could again show or build on the moral and political leadership that they've shown earlier in their efforts to tackle climate change," he said.
The PIDF was formed in 2013, spearheaded by Fiji, and excludes Australia and New Zealand, which are members of the older Pacific Islands Forum. There were claims at the time that Australia and New Zealand attempted to sabotage the group's first meeting.
Then in 2015 Australia and New Zealand foiled an attempt by the developing countries in the older forum to take a 1.5C target to last year's Paris climate change conference.
But the treaty being considered by the newer group embraces the aspirational 1.5C target set at Paris, setting mitigation targets that are in line with it, as well as establishing adaptation mechanisms to cope with the effects of that warming.
Written by a coalition of non-governmental organisations called the Pacific Island Climate Action Network (PICAN), the model treaty will be the subject of consultations, which will result in a report to the summit next year.
Kumar said it is unlikely to be adopted within one year, but it was possible it could be adopted the following year, in 2018.
Joeteshna Gurdayal Zenos, acting head of Pacfic Net, which is Greenpeace Australia Pacific's climate justice project, said: "Pacific island leaders are among the most proactive in the world on global warming because their countries are bearing the brunt of climate changes.
"Their willingness to consider a Pacific climate treaty shows much-needed leadership on the world's most pressing environmental challenge," she said.
In a report that presents the model treaty, PICAN said: "The rationale is that potential Parties to the Treaty already possess the political courage and commitment needed to adopt a flagship legal instrument that is sufficiently ambitious to prevent catastrophic changes in the global climate system.
"Such a treaty, when implemented in collaboration with PIDF and civil society, would send a powerful signal to markets, governments and civil society around the world that the end of fossil fuels is near, with Pacific Islanders acting not as victims of climate change but as agents of change.
"As there is currently no treaty that bans or phases out fossil fuels, the Treaty would set a pioneering example to the rest of the world."
The treaty itself would bind parties to not approve any new coal or fossil fuel mines and not provide any subsidy for fossil fuel mining or consumption.
It says parties will ensure "universal access" to clean energy by 2030, and would establish a "Pacific framework for renewable energy" to achieve that goal.
The treaty would establish a fund, which would provide compensation for communities that have suffered climate change-related losses.
The proposed treaty also has sections on climate-related migration and adaptation.

Links

Dear Prime Minister, Our Kids Are Trusting Us On Climate Change

Huffington PostDavid Ritter*

We must not let them down. 
"Anyone who seeks a position of public responsibility is a trustee for their grandkids -- indeed for all the children of the future." Roger Wright
Dear Prime Minister,
Sincere congratulations on your re-election.
I am writing to you today, though, not as a voter addressing Australia's leader, but as a father to a grandfather.
It was delightful to see you with your grandchildren, Jack and Isla, during the election campaign. They look like lovely, bouncy little kids who are no doubt a source of enormous pride and joy to their families.
I've got two daughters, Josie and Rachel, who are seven and almost four. My father got to meet a very young Josie before he died, but he never got to meet Rachel, which is something I feel enduring sadness about. I wish you and your family all the best in cherishing the opportunities to be together.
I was genuinely moved by your public comments earlier this week when you said: "I know many people probably think I am an unduly sentimental fellow, sentimental bloke perhaps... But I was touched, deeply touched by the fact that when Bill [Shorten] rang [to concede the election] I literally had my, our little granddaughter on my hip... It is a beautiful reminder that we are trustees... for future generations. We're trustees for our little grandchildren and of course their grandchildren."
I agree with you. Anyone who seeks a position of public responsibility is a trustee for their grandkids -- indeed for all the children of the future. It is a solemn but beautiful duty to build and nurture a world that will enable the descendants of the Jacks, the Islas, the Rachels and the Josies, and all of their generation, to flourish long after we are gone. It is the greatest gift we can give.
I have only met you personally on one occasion, but you were generous with your time, which I greatly appreciated. Predictably, we talked mainly of global warming. I believe we share the understanding that global warming poses the single greatest threat to the future health, safety and happiness of my children and your grandchildren; indeed, of all the children of our country.
Like many Australians, I rejoiced when you took the prime ministership from Mr Abbott because I know you understand the need for a proportionate response to global warming. For whatever reason, your predecessor did not. But I won't lie -- I was badly disappointed in the first Turnbull Government for failing to do what is needed on global warming, and I've been publicly critical of that failure. Nothing personal of course, and nothing partisan either -- I've had a go at plenty of ALP politicians in the past too, because my organisation is an independent watchdog in our democracy.
The beauty of an election is that every new prime minister gets a fresh chance. Like many Australians, I continue to believe that you want something different.
As you know, at law the distinguishing obligation of a trustee is single-minded loyalty -- which is what future generations are entitled to from us. In your unique case and adopting your test, I respectfully suggest that your trusteeship entails undertaking the political contest with Coalition members who do not understand the scale of the threat posed by global warming.
I do hope you think about what you have described as trusteeship every single day, since the current parliament may well be the most crucial in Australian history. I hope this duty guides you in all you do. This year we have seen our reefs bleaching, our mangroves dying and our forests burning. But as the saying goes, the future is not yet written.
All over Australia, individuals, local communities and the entrepreneurs of the renewables industry are ready to put a hand out to work with you. Emissions targets that reflect the best science, fostering rapid innovation in the renewables sector, commitment to global best practice and removing industry subsidies and protection for the fossil fuel industry could become the hallmarks of your government.
The Australian prime minister who secures our country with a swift, fair and just transition away from fossil fuels will take their place as one of the giants of our national story. Any such leader will be able to look a child of our country in the eye and say with honour that they did all they could; that they did what was right in the face of the evidence; that they fully discharged their trusteeship.
My seven-year-old daughter, Josie, asked me recently what would happen if the grown-ups didn't find a solution to global warming. I looked her in the eye and promised her that the grown-ups would sort it out; that we would not let her down.
From a father to a grandfather, I wish you the best of good fortune in leading our nation well.

*David Ritter is CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. 

Links

Climate Change Department Killed Off By Theresa May In 'Plain Stupid' And 'Deeply Worrying' Move

The IndependentIan Johnston

Campaigners called for 'urgent reassurance from the new government' that the fight against climate change and pollution will not be 'abandoned'
Theresa May has raised fears about her Government's attitude towards global warming Getty Images
The decision to abolish the Department for Energy and Climate Change has been variously condemned as "plain stupid", "deeply worrying" and "terrible" by politicians, campaigners and experts.
One of Theresa May's first acts as Prime Minister was to move responsibility for climate change to a new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
Only on Monday, Government advisers had warned of the need to take urgent action to prepare the UK for floods, droughts, heatwaves and food shortages caused by climate change.


The news came after the appointment of Andrea Leadsom – who revealed her first question to officials when she became Energy Minister last year was "Is climate change real? – was appointed as the new Environment Secretary.
And, after former Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd announced in November that Britain was going to "close coal" by 2025, Ms Leadsom later asked the coal industry to help define what this actually meant.
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband tweeted: "DECC abolition just plain stupid. Climate not even mentioned in new deptartment title. Matters because departments shape priorities, shape outcomes."
Greenpeace said it was concerned that the new Government did not view climate change as a serious threat..
John Sauven, the campaign group's executive director, said: "The voting record and affiliation with climate sceptics of key cabinet appointees are deeply worrying.
"They show a lack of understanding posed by climate change to the UK and the world. If we are to continue to have a key global role in environmental action, we need urgent reassurance from the new government that the hard won progress on climate and renewables targets, air pollution and the protection of wildlife will not be sidelined or abandoned in the Brexit negotiations."
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas described the decision as "deeply worrying".
"Climate change is the biggest challenge we face, and it must not be an afterthought for the Government," she said.
"Dealing with climate change requires a dedicated Minister at the Cabinet table. To throw it into the basement of another Whitehall department, looks like a serious backwards step."
She said she would work with any Minister "willing to take climate change seriously", but added she would seek to hold Government to account for "any backpeddling on our climate change commitments".
Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth, pointed out that a major report into the effects of climate change on Britain had made clear that it was already happening.
"This is shocking news. Less than a day into the job and it appears that the new Prime Minister has already downgraded action to tackle climate change, one of the biggest threats we face," he said.
"This week the Government's own advisors warned of ever growing risks to our businesses, homes and food if we don't do more to cut fossil fuel pollution.
"If Theresa May supports strong action on climate change, as she's previously said, it's essential that this is made a top priority for the new business and energy department and across government."
And Stephen Devlin, an environmental economist at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), said the department's abolition was "a terrible move by our new Prime Minister".
He said it appeared to signal "a troubling de-prioritisation of climate change by this government".
"Tackling climate change is an era-defining challenge that must direct and determine what industries we develop, what transport infrastructure we construct, how we manage our land and what our diets look like. It requires a central co-ordinated strategy; if we leave it to the afterthoughts of other departments we will fail," he said.
"This reshuffle risks dropping climate change from the policy agenda altogether – a staggering act of negligence for which we will all pay the price."
He called on Ms May to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the 2008 Climate Change Act, which he described as a "world-leading piece of legislation".
This commits the UK to an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and is "one of few remaining silver linings in UK environmental policy", Mr Devlin said.
A letter by DECC's permanent secretary, Alex Chisholm, to staff in his department, which was leaked to Civil Service World, confirmed that its responsibilities were being transferred to the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, under its new Secretary, Greg Clark.
"We can make sure we have the 21st century infrastructure we need. Business will have a strong champion in government," he wrote.
"Energy and climate change will continue in a single department ensuring efficient paths to carbon reduction."
A spokesman for DECC told The Independent: "Nothing is changing. The commitment [to dealing with climate change] is still there."

Links