The Guardian - Fiona Harvey Hosts Fiji will be aiming to build transparency and constructive dialogue – and this will be crucial to successfully ratcheting up the tough climate targets sidestepped at Paris
Frank Bainimarama (L), prime minister of Fiji and host of the Bonn talks, meets with Ambassador Aziz Mekouar of Morrocco.
Photograph: James Dowson/UNFCCC
Talanoa is a Fijian term for discussions aimed at building consensus,
airing differences constructively, and finding ways to overcome
difficulties or embark on new projects. It is one of the building blocks
of Fijian society, used for centuries to foster greater understanding
among a people distributed over many small islands, and carry them
through a tough existence.
This week, talanoa comes to Europe, and the rest of the world. Fiji
is hosting the UN’s climate talks, following on from the landmark Paris
agreement of 2015, and will hold the conference in Bonn, Germany. Talanoa will be the founding principle of the conference,
the means by which Fiji hopes to break through some of the seemingly
intractable problems that have made these 20-plus years of negotiations a
source of bitter conflict.
“Talanoa is a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent
dialogue that builds empathy and leads to decision-making for the
collective good,” said Frank Bainimarama, prime minister of Fiji.
“It is not about finger pointing and laying blame but about listening
to each other. By focusing on the benefits of action [against climate
change] this process will move the global climate agenda forward.”
The most likely subject of finger-pointing will be Donald Trump. The US president this summer announced the withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement.
This was a blow to the 194 other countries which signed up to the 2015
accord, because the US is the world’s second biggest emitter of fossil
fuels, after China.
Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican mayor of New York, said
Trump’s White House did not speak for the rest of the US. “[This week]
I’ll help lead a delegation of US mayors, governors and CEOs and we will
deliver a unified message: Americans remain committed to meeting our
commitment under the Paris agreement, no matter what happens in
Washington. We can get there.”
Donald Trump announces his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris
accord on 1 June 2017. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Yet the divisions likely to be caused by Trump’s stance should not be
underestimated. Gaining a consensus involving the US and China was
arguably the biggest achievement of Paris – the first time that all
developed and developing countries had signed a pact vowing to limit
global warming to 2C, which scientists say is the limit of safety. The
history of the UN negotiations has been littered with attempts at such
an agreement that fell short – the Kyoto protocol of 1997, the
Copenhagen conference of 2009 – so when the gavel came down on the Paris agreement,
it was an unparalleled landmark in the history of the world’s fight
against climate change. The negotiations under the UN on a global
agreement have been going on since 1992. Meanwhile, the concentrations
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have steadily increased, reaching levels not seen for 800,000 years.
At
Bonn, Trump’s team are reportedly preparing to inflame the talks yet
further, by concentrating on the supposed benefits of coal-fired power.
Fiji hopes to confine the White House’s activities to a sideshow.
There are two substantive issues to be discussed at this conference,
which will carry on whatever the US position is. First is the “ratchet” –
the means by which the pledges on emissions made at Paris will be
increased in future years, in line with scientific advice. Second, and
of huge importance to the hosts, is the question of adaptation to the
effects of climate change. Adaptation
was long a dirty word at climate change conferences. Civil society
groups feared that espousing, and devoting money to, the means of
staving off the worst effects of warming – walls against sea level rises, dykes and floating houses,
changes to agriculture to grow heat-adapted crops – would distract
attention from the urgent business of reducing emissions. For Fiji and
other Pacific islands, however, the effects of climate change are
already being felt, and finding ways to reduce their impact will be
crucial in the years to come.
One way round this has been to change the emphasis. Instead of
adaptation, countries are now talking about resilience – a more positive
term, suggesting empowerment and action, rather than giving in to a
threat.
“We want resilient development,” said Lord Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and author of the landmark 2006 review of the economics of climate change.
“This is a development-oriented idea. We used to have the idea that it
is more expensive to build things that are low-carbon, but that was
wrong. Development should be resilient and sustainable. Whenever I come
across the word adaptation, I delete it and put in resilience.”
Experts meet to discuss adaptation ahead of COP23 in Bonn, May 2017. Photograph: James Dowson/UNFCCC
Building resilience has advantages that go far beyond climate change –
improvements to infrastructure, and a better evolved response to
natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes that have nothing to
do with global warming – and can also help to improve the quality of
people’s lives, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For
instance, improved public transport systems would have a huge economic
benefit in many developing countries, would reduce reliance on fossil
fuels, and could be built in such a way as to be resistant against
encroaching climate change. Buildings constructed with climate change in
mind would also be more efficient, resistant to extreme heat, and
against the storms, floods and droughts that are likely to become more
frequent under global warming.
At Bonn, discussions are likely to focus on how to help developing
countries become more resilient, and the financing that may be available
for them to do so. The latter could be a combination of overseas aid
from major economies, and investment from the private sector. These
discussions, however, are still at an early stage and there may be
little concrete outcome on them from the talks other than a decision to
keep talking.
Yet the most pressing issue of the conference is likely to be the one
that receives least public attention, and deliberately so. Known as the
“facilitative dialogue”, this is a crucial – but overlooked – rider to
the Paris agreement.
At Paris, countries acknowledged that their pledges to curb
greenhouse gas emissions fell well short of the reductions advised by
scientists. In order to forge the agreement, they made a compromise: in
future years, they would ratchet up their pledges to the levels
required.
A meeting board at the Bonn UN climate change conference – Bula is a
Fijian word used in greeting. Photograph: James Dowson/UNFCCC
This made agreement at Paris possible, but it effectively put off the
toughest negotiations to future years of talks. The difficulty of
resolving this should not be underestimated. Currently, none of the
world’s biggest emitters can agree on how any such ratchet mechanism
would work. Should countries, for instance, take on more stringent
emissions goals simply by adding a certain amount to their current
pledges? Or should their future pledges be calculated based on their
projected economic growth? How should the responsibility for historic
emissions be taken into account? What status should be given to
scientific advice on how to keep within the 2C limit?
Most countries want to ensure that their pledges are entirely of
their own devising, rather than reached in consensus with the rest of
the UN, but it is unclear what would happen if these pledges are
inadequate. The work is made harder still by deficiencies in collating
reliable and up-to-date data on each country’s emissions.
The discussions on the ratchet mechanism are known in the UN jargon
as “the facilitative dialogue”, a name that disguises the fraught nature
of these negotiations. Given the lack of consensus among major
countries on how any such ratchet mechanism should work, and the adamant
refusal of the US to take part in further pledges, it may take much
more than talanoa – and years more of tough negotiations – to come up
with a solution to this conundrum.
The number of countries in which greenhouse gases has peaked
continues to rise, representing a "critical turning point" in the task
of curbing climate change, according to a report by the World Resources
Institute.
While offering a "silver lining", the rate of national
peaking won't be fast enough to prevent emissions reaching a zenith
before 2030, assuming countries implement their Paris climate pledges,
the Washington D.C.-based think-tank said.
Carbon dioxide levels surged in 2016 The amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere in 2016 hit a rate not seen for millions of years, the United Nations said.
Any backsliding by China and the US, the two biggest emitters
accounting for more than a third of the total, would also "significantly
compromise" the peak projections, it said.
Most of the early
peakers were former Eastern Bloc nations, whose heavy industry sectors
hammered in the run-up to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom, though, had also seen their
greenhouse gas pollution top out by that year.
Australia, thanks largely to a reduction in land clearing, has
probably seen its emissions peak in 2006 at 610.2 million tonnes of
carbon-dioxide equivalent.
While the most recent quarterly figures show Australia's pollution
edging higher – up 1.2 per cent to 550.1 million tonnes of CO2-e in the
year to March 2017 – government projections don't point to a new peak
By 2010, 49 nations had likely peaked emissions, a tally the WRI
projects will reach 53 nations by 2020 and 57 by 2030. The share of
pollution from those peaking nations was 36 per cent in 2010, rising to
40 per cent in 2020 and 60 per cent by 2030, the WRI estimates. (See
chart below).
More nations are hitting peak emissions, although more needs to be done if the Paris climate goals are to achieved. Photo: AAP
Frydenberg to attend Bonn event
The think-tank's report is among a flurry of studies released ahead
of the Bonn climate conference that begins next week in Germany. The
gathering will review progress towards the climate targets agreed on by
almost 200 nations in Paris in late 2015.
Josh Frydenberg,
federal Environment and Energy minister, will be the most senior
Australian official at Bonn and plans to attend November 14-16, a
spokeswoman said. The overall event runs from November 6-17.
Globally, the world add 31,000 solar panels every hour, the IFC says. Photo: supplied
US emissions are assumed by the WRI to have peaked in 2007 despite
current President Donald Trump's campaign promise to end "the war on
coal", and his promise to pull America out of the Paris agreement.
Steady Chinese emissions have been critical to a flat-lining in global emissions over the past three years. Even so, atmospheric CO2 levels jumped by a record rate last year,
and China's growth of total greenhouse gases – including potent gases
such as methane – may increase if the economy accelerates.
"The more we delay necessary reductions, the greater the need for rapid reductions in subsequent decades," the WRI said.
Any
delay poses greater risks of economic disruption and more reliance on
unproven technologies to achieve negative emissions. It would also
raise risks of higher temperatures and associated greater adaptation
costs, it said. (See below of different scenarios.)
Carbon price 'key'
A separate study by the International Finance Corp., part of the
World Bank Group, estimated the Paris accord could create $US23
trillion in investment opportunities for 21 emerging economies alone by
2030.
Renewable energy investment, now worth $US297 billion a
year, is expected to rise 37-fold to $US11 trillion by 2040, the IFC
said. Most of that money will come from private investors.
One IFC
project in Papua New Guinea, partly funded by Australia, had brought
low-cost off-grid solar energy and storage to almost 20 per cent of the
population in just a couple of years. The model could be replicated in
the Pacific and elsewhere, Thomas Kerr, an author of the report, said.
"We
see a huge potential," said Mr Kerr, adding nations could be encouraged
to lift their Paris emissions-reduction goals if the huge supply of
funds makes their targets more achievable as expected.
Carbon
pricing – a policy rejected by the Abbott and Turnbull governments – is
favoured by the IFC as an efficient method to promote the shift from
fossil fuels to lower-carbon alternatives. "We think that it is just a
key policy that countries should be putting in place to … level the
playing field," Mr Kerr said.
Australia’s fossil fuel share of electricity generation is higher than that of our peers.
The following chart is ugly, in my next life I hope to come back with
more drawing ability and a better sense of design, but its also ugly
for Australians who care about doing our bit in the 21st century.
The data are for Jan-July 2017 cumulative for selected countries and regions. i.e. it’s basically right up to date. It shows that Australia has the highest share of fossil fuel generation in the selected sample of countries.
Most of the rest of the sample shows a big increase in wind & PV production. For instance in the USA as a whole (not shown) wind & PV cumulative production is up about 35% this year so far.
The graph also shows that our share (which includes rooftop PV) of wind & PV is one of the lowest. To be clear the IEA stats lump other in with wind & PV in their monthly data and so the chart marginally overstates the wind & PV share for the European countries selected. But we don’t think that makes much difference.
None of these other countries or grids seem to feel there is any difficulty, yet, with reliability. However its also fair to say that discussions about dispatchability and other market design related issues in many of these regions is on the increase.
It’s also fair to point out that transmission interconnectors more easily facilitate more renewables. But then we could easily build some more of them. Even the rainy UK is well ahead of Australia. California and Spain at 28% and 24% respectively are more than 3 times bigger in wind & PV than Australia and with comparable grid sizes.
As the electricity price in virtually every country and region is
lower than in Australia and as the renewable energy share is higher in
almost all of them, so its clearly not renewables alone that is
responsible for high prices. But anyone reading this knew that already.
To be sure I could select some countries in Eastern Europe and in
Asia that are worse than Australia, but I like to think we are better
than that. We are wealthy country with great renewable resources and we
can and will do better.
The UN is warning that we are now on course for 3C of global warming. This will ultimately redraw the map of the world
Global temperature change compared to pre-industrial levels
When UN climate negotiators meet for summit talks this month, there will be a new figure on the table: 3C.
Until now, global efforts such as the Paris climate agreement have
tried to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels.
However, with latest projections pointing to an increase of 3.2C by
2100, these goals seem to be slipping out of reach.
“[We] still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing
nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable
future,” said Erik Solheim, the UN environment chief, ahead of the
upcoming Bonn conference.
One of the biggest resulting threats to cities around the world is
sea-level rise, caused by the expansion of water at higher temperatures
and melting ice sheets on the north and south poles.
Scientists at the non-profit organisation Climate Central estimate
that 275 million people worldwide live in areas that will eventually be
flooded at 3C of global warming.
Asian cities will be worst affected. The regional impact of these changes is highly uneven, with four out of five people affected living in Asia.
Although
sea levels will not rise instantaneously, the calculated increases will
be “locked in” at a temperature rise of 3C, meaning they will be
irreversible even if warming eventually slows down.
Osaka, Japan: 5.2 million people affected
At the end of a month in which it has been battered by unseasonably late typhoons and relentless rain, Japan is already confronting the threat posed by climate change-induced flooding.
Image modelling shows that swaths of Osaka – the commercial heart of a
region whose GDP is almost as big as that of the Netherlands – would
disappear beneath the water in a 3C world, threatening the local economy
and almost a third of the wider region’s 19 million residents. Millions of people live in the urban area surrounding Osaka. Sea-level rise will reshape densely and sparsely populated areas.
As a result of global sea-level rise, storm surges and other factors,
economists project that coastal flooding could put almost $1tn of
Osaka’s assets at risk by the 2070s, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The costs of protecting cities from rising sea levels and storms are
also likely to rise - as are the costs of repairing storm damage,” it
said. “Decisions we make today could have a profound impact on the
security and culture of the people of this ancient city.”
Like much of Japan, Osaka already has a network of seawalls and other
coastal defences in place to combat tsunami – although their
effectiveness was disputed in the aftermath of the 2011 triple disaster.
Osaka city authorities are investing in other infrastructure to
mitigate the effects of flooding, but public education is also vital,
according to Toshikazu Nakaaki of the Osaka municipal government’s
environment bureau.
“In the past our response was focused on reducing the causes of
global warming, but given that climate change is inevitable, according
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we are now
discussing how to respond to the natural disasters that will follow,”
Nakaaki said.
“We anticipate that Osaka will be affected by natural disasters
caused by climate change, but we have yet to establish exactly what
might happen or how much financial damage they would cause.
“It’s not that we expect sea levels to rise at some point in the future – they are already rising.”
Keiko Kanai has long been aware that her home city is susceptible to
natural disasters. “I’d heard that historically, tsunamis caused by
earthquakes put many parts of Osaka underwater, and I knew that some
parts of the world were at risk from rising sea levels,” said Kanai, who
teaches at a local university.
“But I didn’t put two and two together. Until now I haven’t given
much thought to the idea that Osaka too could be engulfed by rising sea
levels.”
Kaori Akazawa, a nursing care consultant, said flooding was a consideration when she was deciding where in Osaka to live.
“When I moved here I talked to my colleagues about the risks,” she
said. “That’s why I’ve always rented apartments on the fourth storey or
higher.
“It’s worrying, but I’ve never considered moving.” Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Alexandria, Egypt: 3 million people affected
On the Alexandria Corniche, waves slowly lap at a shoreline dotted
with plastic chairs and umbrellas from the beachside cafes. Students
perch on the steps of the imposing Alexandria library. But the same
coastline that draws locals to its scenic vistas is threatening to
slowly engulf the historic city as sea levels rise due to global
warming.
The IPCC reported
that Alexandria’s beaches would be submerged even with a 0.5-metre
sea-level rise, while 8 million people would be displaced by flooding in
Alexandria and the Nile Delta if no protective measures are taken. A 3C
world threatens far greater damage than that.
Yet for many residents, there is little public information to connect
the increasingly chaotic weather and floods with climate change. “The
vast majority of Alexandrians don’t have access to knowledge, and that’s
what worries me. I don’t expect the government to raise awareness of
this problem until it’s already happening,” said 22-year-old student
Kareem Mohammed.
“Everyone thinks we should act on this problem 50 or 80 years from
now,” agreed his friend, Hazem Hassan, a student in marine biology at
the nearby Alexandria University.
Officials maintain that protective measures are being taken, but with
little fanfare. “Egypt spends 700m EGP [£30m] annually to protect the
north coast,” said Dr Magdy Allam, head of the Arab Environmental
Experts Union, who was previously part of the Egyptian environment
ministry.
Allam cited the Mohammed Ali sea wall built
in 1830 as a key protection, as well as the concrete blocks lining the
shoreline designed to “detour flood water away from residential
neighbourhoods”. But critics say that this is far from enough given the
scale of the problem.
“There are studies indicating that our city is one of many coastal
human settlements around the world which will be partially submerged by
2070 if nothing is done,” said Ahmed Hassan, of the Save Alexandria
Initiative, a group that works to raise awareness of the effects of
climate change on the city. Ruth Michaelson in Alexandria
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 1.8 million people affected
Residents of Brazil’s postcard city have plenty of reasons to fear
global warming – even if they don’t quite know it. According to Climate
Central, a temperature rise of 3C would cause flooding of not just Rio’s
famous beaches such as Copacabana and its waterfront domestic airport,
but also inland areas of the Barra de Tijuca neighbourhood, where last
year’s Olympic Games were held.
Barra is built around a network of heavily polluted lagoons that
empty into the sea. The prospect of it being underwater alarmed resident
Sueli Gonçalves, 46, who runs pensioners’ health projects, as she and
her 23-year-old son Yuri Sanchez carried their shopping past the Olympic
Park.
“My God. Oh Jesus,” she said, with a nervous laugh. “I will leave here. I will go to the United States. To Canada.”
The family knew about global warming but were unaware of the
potential scale of the impact on their upscale neighbourhood of smart
condominiums and a shopping mall.
“Nobody takes it seriously. People do not think long term,” Gonçalves said.
Storm surges recently destroyed hundreds of metres of beachfront
pavement overlooking the Macumba beach, a popular surfing spot on Rio’s
western fringes. Last year, heavy waves in another storm surge felled an
elevated, clifftop cycle path between Leblon beach and Barra de Tijuca
which had not been built to survive such high seas, killing two people.
Last year, Rio’s city government and the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro produced a study entitled Strategy for Adapting to Climate
Change.
“The current challenge consists in deepening knowledge and monitoring
of oceanic phenomena and the evolution of the sea bed and coast,” a
spokeswoman for the city’s secretariat of the environment said in an
email. An “adaption plan” for climate change produced with professors
from the federal university suggested strategies to deal with
vulnerabilities in areas such as transport, health and housing. But so
far little has been done.
Nara Pinto, 38, who lives in the sprawling Rocinha favela and sells
snacks on the pavement overlooking Copacabana beach, said the loss of
Rio’s famous beaches would cost a lot of jobs.
“The beach is a tourist point,” she said. “What can be done to stop this? Dom Phillips in Rio de Janeiro
Shanghai, China: 17.5 million people affected
“Shanghai is completely gone – I’d have to move to Tibet!” says
resident Wang Liubin, when he is shown projections for the city after 3C
of global warming.
When it comes to flooding, the coastal city is one of the world’s
most vulnerable. Now one of the world’s biggest ports, the former
fishing village is bordered by the Yangtze river in the north and
divided through the middle by the Huangpu river; the municipality
involves several islands, two long coastlines, shipping ports, and miles
of canals, rivers, and waterways.
In 2012, a report from a team of
UK and Dutch scientists declared Shanghai the most vulnerable major city
in the world to serious flooding, based on factors such as numbers of
people living close to the coastline, time needed to recover from
flooding, and measures to prevent floodwater. According to Climate
Central projections, 17.5 million people could be displaced by rising
waters if global temperatures increase by 3C.
Projections show the vast majority of the city could eventually be
submerged in water, including much of the downtown area, landmarks such
as the Lujiazui skyline and the historical Bund, both airports, and the
entirety of its outlying Chongming Island.
Since 2012, the government has been making steady inroads to tackle
the threat, including building China’s largest deepwater drainage system
beneath the Suzhou Creek waterway, made up of 15km of pipes to drain
rainwater across a 58 sq km area. It has also rolled out a 40bn yuan
(£5bn) River Flood Discharge project which will stretch for 120km
between Lake Taihu and the Huangpu river to try and mitigate the risk of
the upstream lake flooding.
Flood prevention walls are being built along the waterfront – in
places so high the river is blocked from view – and 200km more are
promised across the city’s outlying districts. Flood controls have been
put in place along the famous Bund waterfront, where the walkway has
been raised to help counter a flood risk, as well as a series of water
controls and dams. Helen Roxburgh in Shanghai
Miami, US: 2.7 million people affected
Few other cities in the world have as much to lose from rising sea levels as Miami, and the alarm bells sound ever louder with each successive “king tide” that overwhelms coastal defences and sends knee-deep seawater coursing through downtown streets.
Locals consider this the “new normal” in the biggest city of
Florida’s largest metropolitan area, which would simply cease to exist
with a 3C temperature rise. Even at 2C, forecasts show almost the entire
bottom third of Florida – the area south of Lake Okeechobee currently
home to more than 7 million people - submerged, with grim projections
for the rest of the state in a little more than half a century. In
Miami-Dade county alone, almost $15bn of coastal property is at risk of flooding in just the next 15 years.
A sense of urgency is evident at city hall, where commissioners are asking voters to approve a “Miami Forever” bond in the November ballot that includes $192m for upgrading pump stations, improving drainage and raising sea walls.
“We have a really precious city that many people love and are willing
to invest in right now, but it’s going to take some funds to protect
it,” said Ken Russell, the city commission’s vice-chair.
Last year, the city of Miami appointed sea-rise expert Jane Gilbert
into the newly created role of chief resilience officer with
instructions for a robust stormwater management plan that also looks at
storm surge, such as that from Hurricane Irma in September which brought
significant flooding to downtown Brickell and neighbouring Coconut Grove.
Proposals include elevating roads and even abandoning neighbourhoods to the water to protect others.
“We need universal recognition that we’re all in this together, to
protect this amazing global city that we’ve become,” she said.
Natalia Ortiz, who grew up in Miami, fears the future. “It’s very scary,” said Ortiz, who works with Cleo,
a climate change advocacy group. “My son is 11 and my daughter is nine,
so they’re young but I think about their future, will they be able to
raise their children in Miami the way I had the luxury of raising mine?” Richard Luscombe in Miami Methodology Flood maps were created using sea-level rise estimates
from Climate Central and digital elevation data. Population estimates
refer to urban agglomerations which comprise the built-up area of a city
and the suburbs linked with it. Maps include OpenStreetMap data. Temperature projections are based on University of Washington emissions modelling and UN warming estimates. Trajectories have been updated to match latest temperatures as recorded by the Met Office Hadley Centre.Josh Holder, Niko Kommenda and Jonathan Watts
In this Aug. 2, 2017 file photo the exhaust pipes
of a VW Diesel car are photographed in Frankfurt, Germany.The UN
Climate Change Conference 2017 will take place under Presidency of the
Government of Fiji in Bonn, Germany and starts on Monday, Nov. 6, 2017. AP Photo/Michael Probst
Climate change is back on the agenda with a global climate conference kicking off Monday in the German city of Bonn.
Who's coming, what are the key debates about and how green will this
meeting be? Five things to know about the U.N. conference known as
COP23, which runs from Nov. 6-17.
Who Is Coming To Bonn?
Up to 25,000 people are expected to attend the talks, which will be
presided over by Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama of Fiji — the first
time that a small island nation will be at the helm of a major
international climate conference. Participants will include diplomats
from 195 nations, as well as scientists, lobbyists and
environmentalists.
The United States, which has announced its intention to pull out of the
landmark Paris climate accord, will be represented by Undersecretary of
State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon.
Key countries to watch during the talks are the emerging economic powers
China and India. Other nations — Estonia, Peru, Ecuador, Iran, Mali,
Ethiopia and the Maldives — will also be in the spotlight for leading
major international groupings.
French President Emmanuel Macron,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leaders are expected to fly
to Bonn toward the end of the summit to give the talks a final push and
signal their commitment to fighting climate change.
What Are The Big Climate Change Topics Now?
The 2015 Paris accord set a target of limiting global warming to 1.5
degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — or 2 degrees at the most — by
the end of the century.
But diplomats didn't agree on the details of how their nations will
reach that ambitious goal. The Bonn talks will flesh out the rule book
that countries have to abide by.
This includes coming up with international standards for how to measure
carbon emissions, to make sure that one nation's efforts can be compare
to another's. A second debate centers around how countries take stock of
what's been achieved and set new, more ambitious goals for curbing
carbon emissions after 2020.
The third big issue concerns money. Experts agree that shifting
economies away from fossil fuels and preparing countries for some of the
inevitable consequences of climate change will require vast financial
resources — including some from the U.S. administration of President
Donald Trump, which is doubtful about man-made climate change.
Why Bonn?
Organizing a massive global conference in Fiji would have strained the
Pacific nation's resources and posed a travel nightmare for thousands of
delegates. Germany offered to host the talks in Bonn, the country's
former capital, because it has ample conference space and is already
home to the U.N. climate change agency.
Still, they are going to miss the sunshine of Fiji. The weather in Bonn is generally dreary at best in November.
How Green Will The Conference Be?
Germany says the two-week talks will as environmentally friendly as
possible. The country is setting aside part of the 117 million euro
($136.3 million) budget for a fleet of bicycles and electric buses to
ferry people between venues.
Each participant will receive a bottle to fill with tap water — a move organizers say will save half a million plastic cups.
Germany's environment ministry is also investing in renewable energy
projects to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by
people from all over the world flying into Bonn for the talks.
And What About Germany's Coal Usage?
Germany likes to portray itself as a leader in the fight against global
warming and Merkel's reputation as the "climate chancellor" is partly
built on the pivotal role she played during past negotiations.
But environmentalists note that Germany still gets about 40 percent of
its electricity from coal-fired plants — one of the most carbon
intensive sources of energy. And German highways are also virtually
unique in having no general speed limit, despite the fact that auto
emissions rise dramatically at higher speeds.
If prosperous Germany fails to meet its own emissions targets, as
current predictions suggest, critics say that would send a bad signal to
the rest of the world.
A busload of indigenous leaders have been crossing Europe to highlight their cause before the start of UN climate talks in Bonn
‘Hope, courage and anger’: The Indigenous Guardians of the
Forest caravan to Bonn, in front of the French National Assembly in
Paris last week.
Photograph: Jonathan Watts for the Guardian
Paris - Of the many thousands of participants at the Bonn climate conference
which begins on 6 November, there will arguably be none who come with
as much hope, courage and anger as the busload of indigenous leaders who
have been criss-crossing Europe over the past two weeks, on their way
to the former German capital.
The 20 activists on the tour represent forest communities that have
been marginalised over centuries but are now increasingly recognised as
important actors against climate change through their protection of
carbon sinks.
In the run-up to the United Nations talks, they have been visiting the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany,
talking to city leaders, environment NGOs and youth groups. Their aim
is to build support for their role as forest defenders – a role that
frequently puts them odds with agribusiness, mining companies and public
security. The Observer caught up with them on the road to Paris.
“We have been looking after the forest for thousands of
years. We know how to protect them,” said Candida Dereck Jackson, vice
president of the National Indigenous Alliance in Honduras, as she
outlined the principal demands of the group: respect for land rights,
recognition of crimes against the environment, direct negotiations over
forest protection, decriminalisation of indigenous activists, and free,
prior and informed consent before any development by outsiders.
In one sense it is part of a battle that first peoples – as many
indigenous groups refer to themselves – have been fighting since their
territories were colonised hundreds of years ago. But this time the
campaign is being waged from a bus – previously used for rock music
tours and election campaigns – in the context of growing concern about
the climate and environment.
This has provided some overlap with their ancient struggle to retain ancestral land and a different set of values.
Cándido Mezúa of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests
said priorities needed to shift away from outside companies who were
threatening forests and towards native communities that supported them.
“We see with great sadness that billions of dollars are invested in
agribusiness and the institutions that are behind the crisis we are
facing, but there is very little interest in indigenous populations who
can help with a solution,” he said at a stop at the Royal Society in
London.
This is not just a moral argument. Researchers at the World Resources
Institute have found that tenure-secure indigenous forestlands provided
significant global carbon benefits. In Bolivia, Brazil and Colombia
alone they say this is worth $25bn–$34bn over the next 20 years –
equivalent to taking between nine million and 12.6 million passenger
vehicles off the roads for a year.
Alain Frechette of the Rights and Resources Institute said this was
the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. “Community-owned land
sequesters more carbon, has lower levels of deforestation, greater
biodiversity and supports more people than public or privately owned
forest,” he told the gathering of indigenous leaders, supporters and
journalists.
The contrast with more expensive solutions was apparent at the same
venue the previous evening when oil company executives and senior
politicians called for hundreds of billions of dollars of spending on
carbon capture and storage technology, which – though important – is
expected to contribute only 14% of the emissions cuts needed for the 2C
target.
Instead
of such huge sums, participants in the indigenous caravan say they
could contribute more to the fight against climate change if their land
rights were recognised and states accepted the concept of crimes against
the environment. “Money is not important for indigenous people. What we
want, frankly, is for you to leave us alone,” said Mina Setra of the
Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago. “We don’t want to be
criminalised for protecting our land.”
Setra exemplifies the pragmatic, media-savvy approach of some in the
alliances that represent many of the world’s 370 million indigenous
peoples – whose territories contains 20% of the world’s tropical forest
carbon. Like other participants on the bus tour – from as far afield as
Brazil and Borneo – she says communities who traditionally live in
forests have a closer spiritual connection to nature, but she gives
short shrift to developed world romanticising.
At a service station on the road to Paris, she evokes laughter with an impersonation of Julia Roberts playing the role of Mother Nature in the film Nature Is Speaking, intoning “Nature doesn’t need humans, humans need nature”, then switches back to her own voice to proclaim: “Bullshit!”
Indigenous activists want a place at the climate negotiating table.
At Copenhagen and other previous conferences, they were often treated as
an exotic and sometimes disruptive diversion who turned up for photos
in traditional dress but were given scant opportunity to participate.
This is changing, albeit slowly. The 2015 Paris Accord recognised the contribution of indigenous knowledge
in dealing with climate change. This was the most prominent mention
until now of their role, though it failed to endorse their land rights.
First peoples have, in turn, reversed their position on Redd+, a programme of talks that aims to boost financing of forest carbon sinks.
There is less sign of compromise outside climate talks. Indigenous
groups are often locked in land disputes, targeted in assassinations or
criminalised by justice systems for resisting forest clearance to make
way for cattle ranches, mines and government infrastructure.
As the bus speeds along the motorway, Mark Rivas – a Miskito from
Nicaragua – gazes out of the window at the grey skies and peaceful
farmlands of northern Europe and reflects on the very different
situation in his community. Seven Miskito have been killed so far this
year for opposing a land grab by ranchers,
he says, but none of the killers have been brought to justice. He too –
like many others on the bus – has been threatened. “On this trip, I
want to make these problems more visible and get outside pressure on the
Nicaraguan government to ensure our land titles are fully recognised,”
he says. “This is a climate issue. We don’t want to give up the land so
the forest can be cleared by ranchers. For us it’s sacred.”
There
is some recognition of this in senior levels of government. In Paris,
the indigenous leaders met the French ecology minister Nicolas Hulot –
who moved from journalism to activism to politics and played a key role
in the Paris Accord of 2015. He said the role of indigenous leaders was
important, and not just at the Bonn talks. “They are perhaps the only
people who can remind us how man has alienated himself from nature. They
can bring a conscience and soul that modern society can aspire to,” he
said.
Hulot said he would ask President Emmanuel Macron to invite the indigenous leaders to a summit in France next year, when progress towards the Paris Accord goals will be assessed.
But beyond fine-sounding generalities, participants on the bus said
they would be looking for concrete steps – particularly on the question
of a planned gold and titanium mine in French Guiana that is opposed by
the country’s indigenous groups.
Jocelyn Therese of the Kalina people, said the open cast pit would be
blasted out of forested land between two indigenous reserves, polluting
the rivers and requiring the construction of a hydroelectric dam. He
has appealed to Macron to intervene. “We want support that will enable
us to manage the forests as the base for our economy, rather than
mining,” Therese said.
Whether the French president listens is another matter. In the
capitals of Europe and the US, commercial interests have trumped
indigenous and environmental concerns for centuries. This is what funded
the construction of the grand capitals of the Old World that the
caravan participants have seen this month – some for the first time.
Rivas – the quiet young man from Nicaragua – is underwhelmed. “All
the death and destruction that came to our country came from Europe,” he
said. “I sense people still have a superficial understanding of our
message. What we want is to be able to continue our spiritual connection
with the forest.”
Queensland premier says the LNP ‘intends to smear me and my partner’ over his work for PwC on Adani’s application for funding through Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
Annastacia Palaszczuk, campaigning with deputy premier Jackie Trad on
Friday. The Queensland premier has accused the LNP of intending to smear
her.
Photograph: Darren England/AAP
The Queensland government will veto Adani’s application for a $1bn
commonwealth loan to build a rail line for its massive Carmichael mine, Annastacia Palaszczuk has said.
Palaszczuk said the dramatic move, amid her campaign for re-election,
came in response to what she believed was a federal Coalition plan to
“smear” her and her partner, Shaun Drabsch, over his role in Adani’s
loan application to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
(Naif).
As the government is in caretaker mode, any move to veto the loan would need bipartisan support.
The move will be a heavy blow to the Indian mining giant’s attempt to win finance in China for the controversial coalmine, but puts the state Labor government on the right side of opinion polls on the issue.
Palaszczuk has accused some in the federal government of breaching
commercial in confidence obligations around Naif to try to sabotage her
campaign.
But the upshot of the rumours is that Palaszczuk has discovered she
unwittingly had a perceived conflict of interest because her partner
worked on an Adani loan bid her government may have been asked to sign
off on.
Palaszczuk said she learned on Tuesday of “a rumour circulating among
LNP senators” about Drabsch’s work as managing partner for PwC, which
helped Adani with its Naif loan application.
“I am told they planned to use this during the election campaign to
impugn my character and suggest something untoward,” she said.
Drabsch was involved in PwC’s work for Adani and its bid for the
federal loan but she did not know this until after the rumour arose this
week, Palaszczuk said.
Palaszczuk sought the advice of the Queensland
integrity commissioner, who told her “a reasonable member of the
public, properly informed” would perceive she now had a conflict of
interest.
Palaszczuk said she now wanted to “remove doubt about any perception
of conflict” by notifying the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, that “my
government will exercise its ‘veto’ to not support the Naif loan”.
The premier said she had kept a 2015 election promise that “not one
cent of taxpayers’ money would go to this company” and stopped the
former LNP government “gifting $500m of taxpayers’ money to Adani”
through a state loan for its Carmichael rail line.
Fact v fiction: Adani's Carmichael coal mine – video explainer
Palaszczuk said her announcement on Friday in Brisbane would be the first Adani was hearing of her decision. She will ask LNP leader Tim Nicholls to endorse her decision.
If Nicholls refuses, the issue of enabling federal financing for Adani will likely become the decisive dividing issue for Labor and LNP in the Queensland campaign until polling day on 25 November. Labor strategists believe voters in regional Queensland who support the mine - and whom the party needs to win over to retain power - will not feel so strongly about taxpayer support being withdrawn. “In terms of the project itself, Adani representatives have been on
the public record numerous times indicating that they do not need Naif
to proceed with this project,” Palaszczuk said.
“Malcolm Turnbull can still give taxpayers’ money to Adani if he
wants to, but I won’t stand for his LNP operatives trying to smear my
good name.”
Palaszczuk said she still supported the project and jobs for
north Queensland but “I do acknowledge many Queenslanders have concerns
about the potential for the federal government providing a loan to
Adani”.
She released the integrity commissioner’s advice, which said it could
be perceived that Palaszczuk “may personally benefit” from influencing
decisions in favour of Drabsch or against rival Naif contenders.
The integrity commissioner, Nikola Stepanov, told Palaszczuk her
conflict arose through her role in the government’s Cabinet Budget
Review Committee (CBRC) – the state’s “approving authority” to execute
Naif loans – and Drabsch’s business dealings.
The premier’s move to veto the loan goes well beyond the strongly
“preferred option” recommended by Stepanov – that Palaszczuk declare a
conflict of interest and exclude herself from CBRC discussions and
decisions on Naif projects.
Palaszczuk also released letters in 2015 showing the integrity
commissioner raised no concerns about her ethical position when Drabsch
joined PWC to advise on infrastructure projects at a federal but not
state level.
Palaszczuk
said Drabsch had kept his work on the Adani application from May 2016 a
secret from her under his “commercial-in-confidence” obligations.
“Shaun has always told me he’s worked at PwC, working on infrastructure, and that is it,” she said.
The only people who knew were PwC and Naif, and of course the Naif reports to the federal government,” Palaszczuk said.
“I understand LNP senators were seeking to use this as a smear against me in the middle of an election campaign.”
Palaszczuk’s chief of staff David Barbagallo told her on Tuesday that
he had, after becoming aware of “rumours being circulated by LNP
senators in Canberra”, confirmed that Drabsch worked on the Adani bid.
Palaszczuk said the LNP senators “obviously” sought to “break that
commercial in confidence” around Drabsch, saying the extent of knowledge
about this was a matter for both Turnbull and Nicholls to address.
“What does that say about the federal government when they are
breaching commercial in confidence arrangements between a company and
the federal government?”
Efforts to discredit her would involve “trying to allege there was a
massive conflict of interest and seeking to tear down my position as
premier of this state and tear down my integrity and honesty”, she said.
“I’m putting on the record every step I have taken and to put beyond any doubt about this, we will veto that loan.
“I entered politics to make a change, I actually want to make a change to people’s lives, not to be smeared at.
“And this sort of level of politics, I think the public find truly and utterly disgusting, as I do.”
Federal resources minister Matt Canavan was quoted by the ABC as
saying the Queensland government had been “all over the shop on Adani”.
“Last year, they wrote to the Commonwealth Government suggesting that
we look at funding the Adani rail line through the NAIF. Then, in May
this year, the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, said the Labor Government
wouldn’t participate in any NAIF loan to the Adani project, which would
effectively block federal funding. The next day, Treasurer Curtis Pitt
contradicted her, saying the Labor Government’s position was to support
Adani being funded by NAIF, he was quoted as saying.
“This is a circus, and it puts thousands of people’s real jobs and real businesses at risk.”
The Guardian has been told the state Labor government was first
warned by federal colleagues weeks ago that the LNP planned to raise in
federal parliament allegations about a conflict of interest involving a
Queensland minister. It was not clear at the time this was Palaszczuk.
The Queensland government does not assess Naif loans but can veto
them by objecting at both a project’s “due diligence” and “investment
decision and execution” stages.
Labor was first pressed on its veto power over the Adani loan when
activists and others, including Greens Maiwar candidate and
environmental lawyer Michael Berkman, raised it earlier this year.
The state government had previously refused to contemplate its veto
power. Strategists within Labor judged that - even while polls show a
majority in the state and nationwide oppose Adani receiving the
government loan – supporting the project was a critical step to
retaining marginal seats in regional Queensland, especially Townsville.
