Seven Climate Change Myths That Big Oil Continues To Perpetuate

The Conversation - George Ferns

kiss/Shutterstock

In the last month alone, major players within the fossil fuel industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its US$1-US$2 billion green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.
But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it
Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice. Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.
But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100% environmentally sustainable is an illusion.
A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.

Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry
According to a recent report, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.
Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change
Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.
Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3% of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1% in 2015, 0.1% in 2014, and so on.

Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option
One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.
There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop
Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked: “Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.
As the World Bank has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The UN concurs, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.



Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making
Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the wallpaper at international environmental conferences. This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.
Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.

Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change
If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate, natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when disrupted. Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for Earth’s inhabitants.
Fossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas such as the Arctic. The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

Links

• Exxon’s Rex Tillerson and the rise of Big Oil in American politics
• Blood oil: more than half of the oil traded across the world has been stolen
• Should oil companies like Exxon be forced to disclose climate change risks?
• US Republicans give the oil industry what it wants – less transparency
• Eradicating Ecocide:Proposed Amendment To The Rome Statute

States Must Get Australia Back On Track, Amid Turnbull’s Climate Train Wreck

RenewEconomy - Leigh Ewbank

Source: Climate Council 2017 LARGE IMAGE

The slow train wreck of climate change policy is still unfolding in Australia. National emissions are rising on the Federal Coalition’s watch, and Australia will fail to meet the meagre emissions cuts it pledged to the Paris Agreement.
Regressive political forces at the national level have seen states and territories step up and lead on climate change. But they’ll have to make the most of existing initiatives and ramp up public investment to maintain the momentum.
States and territories have outshined the federal government in recent years. From the ACT adopting a renewable energy target of 100 percent by 2020 to South Australia’s enthusiasm for solar-thermal and battery storage (as well as this week’s impressive announcements). Even the NSW Liberal government has set a target of zero emissions by 2050.
Victoria is a part of this story too. A year ago today, the Andrews government strengthened the state’s climate change laws after winning the support of The Greens and crossbenchers.
The legislation brought the state’s climate change laws inline with the Paris Agreement. It enshrined a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and requires the government to set interim Emissions Reduction Targets every five years.
The Andrews government’s 2017 legacy also includes the country’s first legislated ban on fracking and onshore gasfields as well as a Victorian Renewable Energy Target of 40 by 2025.
With state elections on the horizon, those who are concerned about climate change want to know one thing: How will the states and territories lead on climate change in 2018?
Despite alarming melting of the polar icecaps, unprecedented bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and parts of the country experiencing record heat, the Turnbull government’s attention is on political scandals rather than substantive policy issues.
The pace of progress on climate policy in South Australia and Tasmania will become clear after elections in March. Here in Victoria, the government has plenty of time to secure gains before the state heads to the polls in November.
In the coming months the Andrews government will, for the first time, set Emissions Reduction Targets for 2025 and 2030.
Victoria can help put Australia back on track but only with a commitment to science-based targets that are in line with the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°Celsius. For Victoria to prepare its economy for the climate change challenge, it’s essential to do the heavy lift of cutting emissions now
In Australia’s most progressive state, a Labor government trumping Turnbull’s weak climate change targets will be popular with voters—especially environmentally conscious voters.
With global warming accelerating, progress on renewables and climate legislation must be followed by serious investment. This makes the budget the logical next step for climate change action.
There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for climate change. Communities in rural and regional areas face qualitatively different impacts to those in urban and inner-city neighbourhoods. What unites them all is the need for government support.
The annual budget process is where governments reveal their priorities. Citizens look closely at budget allocations towards healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
When will we see governments make investing in climate change action a priority?
It will take a sizeable public investment to prepare our cities and towns for the impacts of climate change. A clear program of infrastructure investment is needed to cope with the impact of rising sea levels, increased bushfire risk, and extreme weather. And projects to rein in emissions need support too.
If preparing our communities and economy for the immediate impact and future challenges isn’t the preserve of government, then what is?
Climate change is not going away. If the Federal Coalition government won’t lead then it’ll be up to the states and territories to do the lifting.
The first government to commit to a ‘climate-focused’ budget would position itself as a national leader.

Links

• National Energy Guarantee leaves no guarantees
• National Energy Emissions Audit: February 2018 Electricity Update
• Cooking the books on climate change policy
• Australia's Climate Change Policies Won't Do Enough
• Cooking The Books On Climate Change Policy
• Experts Speak Out About Australia’s Emissions Projections And Climate Policy Review
• Climate Review: Turnbull Government Will Allow Companies To Purchase Foreign Carbon Credits
• At A Glance: Australia's Climate Change Policy Review
• Controversial Abbott-Era Climate Fund Will Survive Climate Review: Josh Frydenberg
• Josh Frydenberg To Seek NEG Nod By April, Final Design Settled By End Of 2018
• South Australia And ACT Outvoted On National Energy Guarantee
• A Shift To Clean Energy Will Come But Politics Remain Vile Until The Next Election
• Liberal Statesman Tells Malcolm Turnbull To Stand And Fight Tony Abbott On Climate
• The Current Energy Debate Is Farcical. What Does This Government Stand For? 

Electric Vehicles No 'Silver Bullet' For Climate Change: Environment Commissioner

Fairfax - Katie Burgess

Electric vehicles will not be a silver bullet as the ACT looks to cut transport emissions after 2020, the ACT's Environment and Sustainability Commissioner has warned.
Speaking as the ACT government responded to her report on the territory's implementation of climate change reforms, Dr Kate Auty said Canberrans needed to embrace a mix of emission-cutting measures to reduce the risks associated with a warming climate.

You can't miss the ACT's new electric and hybrid buses.  Photo: Rohan Thomson

Transport will account for 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions once the ACT converts to 100 per cent renewable energy in 2020, with passenger vehicles contributing about 75 per cent.
Dr Auty said Canberrans needed to "move away from thinking there's a silver bullet like electric vehicles" and embrace other methods of transport like ride sharing, public transport or cycling.

The ACT's environment commissioner Kate Auty. Photo: NeCTAR.

"Electric vehicles are like everything else - one answer to a complex challenge we've been set by our own conduct in respect to greenhouse gas emissions and I'd urge people to think about all the other parts of the transport conundrum and make sure we're doing whatever we can," Dr Auty said.

Climate Change Shane Rattenbury said the ACT's upcoming 2045 Zero Net Emissions strategy would tie into other policy work on future transport planning to encourage people to move away from using private vehicles.
The government adopted 16 of Dr Auty's 17 recommendations about how it could improve on its climate change reforms, including better communicating how to make changes on an individual level.
"Everybody has a part to play, we can't make this somebody else's problem," Mr Rattenbury said.

ACT minister for climate change and sustainability Shane Rattenbury. Photo: Sitthixay Ditthavong 

"Our role as government is to make it easy for people to change their behaviour and to be aware of what they need to do.
"We've got a huge amount of work to do in that space to improve walking and cycling infrastructure, improve public transport and to transition to a electrified vehicle fleet, all of these are challenges ahead of us and that's the next horizon to get stuck into."
Overall Dr Auty said the ACT was doing "more than our share of heavy lifting" when it came to tackling climate change.
She said every action towards cutting emissions made a difference, no matter the size jurisdiction.
"Every time a sub-national government steps away from its responsibilities and says it's small beer, and I don't think I need to do it, we are saying we're happy to live with a 2- and a 4-degree future and if we're saying that it means we're giving up," Dr Auty said.

Links

• ACT government urged to set targets for electric cars to combat emissions
• ACT’s Climate Strategy to a Net Zero Emissions Territory
• ACT’s Climate Strategy To A Net Zero Emissions Territory Discussion Paper (pdf)
• ACT greenhouse gas emissions
• ACT could pay 'social cost' for carbon if it misses emission targets 

Radical Change Urged Over 20 Years To Attain Climate Goals: Institute

Reuters - Alister Doyle

OSLO - The world will need sweeping changes over the next 20 years ranging from energy use to food production to achieve climate goals set by almost 200 nations, the new heads of a top environmental think-tank said on Friday.

FILE PHOTO: A man walks over a bridge as smoke rises from chimneys of a thermal power plant in Shanghai February 23, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

Both said “revolutions” were needed to tackle climate change, such as capturing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels or by reforming agriculture, where meat production and fertilisers are big sources of greenhouse gases.
Developed nations should set an example, such as Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel is under pressure to end the use of coal in power generation.
“When Germany is not in a position to phase out coal can we expect that Poland or Indonesia or Vietnam or Turkey ... can phase out coal?” Ottmar Edenhofer, new co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told Reuters.
Edenhofer, formerly the institute’s chief economist, and new co-director Johan Rockstrom, a Swedish scientist, said governments were far from achieving the core goal in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting a rise in global average temperatures to “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.
“We have just literally 20 years to either succeed or fail” in the goals of getting the planet on a more sustainable path, Rockstrom said in a joint telephone interview.
The University of Pennsylvania rated the Potsdam Institute as the world’s top environment policy think-tank this month.
The institute plans to exploit more data to try to grasp under-appreciated long-term harm from natural disasters linked to climate change such as floods, droughts or storms.
Poor families in developing nations often focus, for instance, on rebuilding their homes after a natural disaster but sometimes stopped sending their children to school even after reconstruction, Edenhofer said.
The institute could use more satellite data, for instance the amount of light emitted at night by villages in developing nations, as a gauge of local poverty and vulnerability, he said. The poorest have the least access to electricity.
Rockstrom and Edenhofer were named by the institute on Friday to succeed Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in October.

Links

• Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
• Social and Natural science together: New Co-Directors to lead the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
• Sea-level legacy: 20cm more rise by 2300 for each 5-year delay in peaking emissions
• The Paris Agreement

Bill Shorten Says There's A 'Role For Coal' And Adani Mine Just 'Another Project'

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

Labor leader’s comments come during visit to Queensland and follow CFMEU’s warning that ALP’s blocking of Carmichael mine would open divisive debate

Protesters gather in front of Parliament House on 5 February to campaign against the Adani coalmine. Labor has shown public signals it intends to toughen its position on the project. Photograph: Michael Masters/Getty Images 

Bill Shorten has declared there is a role for coal in Australia, and characterised the controversial Adani coalmine as just “another project” as he digs in for several days visiting marginal coastal electorates in Queensland, trumpeting local infrastructure commitments.
The positive public signal from the Labor leader on the future of coal followed a warning last week by the CFMEU’s national president, Tony Maher, that any move by Labor to block Adani’s controversial Carmichael coalmine would expose Labor politically in Queensland, and open a divisive debate within the ALP about the future of coalmines in Australia.
Maher told Guardian Australia last week that promising to block the Adani project would raise questions, like “what do you do with the next [coalmine], and the next one, and the one after that?”
Shorten has sent a number of clear public signals since the end of January that Labor intends to toughen its position on the Adani project, and policy work has been under way internally since before Christmas.
But despite all the signalling – which started just before the resignation of the Labor MP David Feeney, a development triggering a byelection in the inner-Melbourne electorate of Batman, where local anti-Adani sentiment is a significant issue – thus far the federal ALP has not revealed any detail about how it might move to stop the project.

In Townsville on Monday, Shorten told local reporters there was a role for mining in Australia, and “there is a role for coal in Australia” and he echoed Maher’s description of Adani as just “another project”.
Last week, Maher told Guardian Australia: “I see no reason for Labor to toughen its position. Why win Batman and lose in central Queensland?”
“The environment groups have worked themselves up into a passion about [Adani]. I don’t know why. Adani is just another project and it should be judged on its merits.”
In Adelaide the shadow infrastructure minister, Anthony Albanese, told 5AA that Labor had not taken any decision to oppose the mine.
“That’s not the decision that we have made,” Albanese said. “We have certainly been very questioning about the project, about its financial viability, whether it will go ahead.
“We’ve been quite rightly questioning about the impact on water and some of the environmental consequences of the project,” he said.
“But Labor has to stand up for Labor values and one of the things about Labor values is about jobs and making sure the economy can function.”
Shorten said in Townsville, while unveiling an expansion of the local port, that Labor would stand up for “real blue-collar jobs” and the next “pipeline of work”.
He said of the Adani project that it was highly unlikely to get finance, and the promised jobs associated with the project had not materialised. The Labor leader said his party’s position on Adani was it “has to stack up commercially and environmentally”.
There are a range of views within federal Labor about what to do about Adani. Labor sources have told Guardian Australia that internal consideration on legal mechanisms to potentially stop Adani remains ongoing, but the party is also focused on sending a clear message to Queensland that Labor will produce a regional industry policy that blue-collar workers can believe in.
The ALP and the Greens will go head to head in Batman, and anti-Adani activist groups are already active in the contest. Melbourne voters go to the polls on 17 March.

Links

• Labor shouldn't toughen its stance on Adani coalmine, CFMEU head warns
• Labor can unify the left by opposing Adani, but it can't forget its blue-collar base
• Queensland accused of breaking ‘no public funds for Adani’ promise
• Queensland election: how Adani helped undo the LNP's push to regain power
• Abbot Point coal terminal: Westpac may not refinance Adani loan
• Q&A: panellists spar over coal as energy debate dominates
• Matt Canavan on Q&A: exporting Adani coal does not affect Australia's emissions
• Adani gives 'green light' to $16bn Carmichael coal mine
• Australian Conservation Foundation vows to pursue all avenues to stop Adani loan
• Bill Shorten welcomes jobs from Adani coalmine but says taxpayers shouldn't foot bill

Panacea for the Pacific? Evaluating Community-Based Climate Change Adaptation

Environmental Change and Security Program - Rachel Clissold | Tahlia Clark | Benjamin Priebbenow | Karen McNamara

The Australian government’s recent Foreign Policy White Paper has been criticized for its underwhelming climate change section.
Penny Wong, the current opposition leader in the Australian Senate, said that its acknowledgement of the need to support a more resilient Pacific region “rings hollow in light of the Abbott/Turnbull Government’s massive aid cuts.”
But despite these criticisms, the Australian government continues to support a range of climate change initiatives in the Pacific.
Increasingly, Australian Aid and its fellow donors, including USAID, JICA and GIZ, take a community-based approach to climate adaptation.
Germany’s GIZ, for example, carries out community-level adaptation activities for all beneficiaries in the Pacific; and USAID has highlighted its community-level projects as important models.
Our recent evaluation of some of these community-level adaptation programs in Vanuatu and Kiribati found that they provide some development benefits, including increased awareness, empowerment, cooperation, and self-esteem, but that it is too soon to tell whether this approach can reduce long-term vulnerability to climate change.

As the Climate Changes, So Does the Way We Respond
Even if global emissions stopped today, the IPCC predicts that we would continue to feel the impacts of climate change for centuries, so adapting to unavoidable impacts is a key component of aid programs in the Pacific.
How we will adapt, however, has evolved, with donors and practitioners shifting from ineffective “top-down” approaches driven by experts, to “bottom-up” interventions like community-based programs that involve greater participation by local stakeholders.
Researchers theorize that community-based adaptation can more effectively increase resilience, but does it actually work in practice?
To understand whether externally funded community-based adaptation programs can reduce vulnerability and increase resilience, we conducted focus groups and interviews across six communities in the Pacific island nations of Vanuatu and Kiribati to measure local perceptions of the appropriateness, effectiveness, equity, impact, and sustainability of these activities.

Appropriate Community-Based Adaptation Improves Awareness
In Vanuatu, we found that the information provided by community-based adaptation programs was especially effective.
Communities in the program gained a better understanding of climate change, recognized the need to adapt, incorporated adaptation into their daily lives, and reported an increased ability to cope.
These results show that raising awareness is critical for reducing vulnerability. On the other hand, the lack of awareness activities in Kiribati was identified as a missed opportunity and was cited as an area for improvement.
For the most part, we found that adaptation activities were appropriate for the local contexts; they were delivered in local languages and catered to existing levels of skills and knowledge. In Vanuatu, the projects also consistently addressed the communities’ most pressing needs, such as food security.
But we did find some room for improvement: Local knowledge was often not integrated into designs, and activities were not always aligned with the participants’ existing schedules. And in Kiribati, the project activity did not address the community’s primary concern, which was water insecurity.

Programs Found Lacking in Equity and Sustainability
The level of equity was highly variable across the adaptation programs—and a clear area for improvement in program design and implementation.
In Vanuatu, the communities largely perceived the programs as equitable, likely due to their gender-inclusive measures and consideration of pre-existing inequalities.
Exclusions, however, persisted; those with lower levels of education, the elderly, and members of a particular religious minority group were left out (an important reminder that we must not overlook religion when working in the Pacific). In Kiribati, men also felt excluded from activities.
Although some participants in Vanuatu believe that the programs’ trainings and practical demonstrations built their capacity to continue activities without support, we found an overall negative perception of the long-term sustainability of these programs.
The activities’ short-term nature, the projects’ insufficient agricultural output, and a lack of ongoing support from implementing organizations demotivated participants and led them to prioritize other commitments.
Furthermore, we also found that the communities were often overly dependent on outside aid to continue the projects, presenting a significant hindrance to successful community adaptation into the future.
As these activities were still relatively new when we evaluated them, it is particularly worrying that issues with sustainability emerged so soon after implementation.

Adaptation: An Effective Development Tool?
The community-based approach to adaptation—like other development-focused adaptation programs—ensures that regardless of the future climate change scenario, there are some positive, development-related improvements.
Our findings reflected this: Although project outputs included many failures, the projects always provided some benefits, including, for example, increased empowerment, community cooperation, and self-esteem, as well as short-term benefits in income and health.
However, it is too early to determine whether community-based adaptation can effectively reduce long-term vulnerability.
We need ongoing monitoring and evaluation to assess long-term performance. And due to its local nature, the impacts are highly contextual.
We also need to evaluate activities in other vulnerable regions, as well as in other countries in the Pacific, to reach a universal understanding of whether community-based adaptation works.
Sharing best practices from these studies will be crucial for the effective use of future resources by NGOs, donors and governments.
Based on our research, we recommend that donors and program designers should:

• Better understand and integrate local contexts in design and implementation;
• Use more participatory processes and integrate local knowledge into design stages;
• Focus on and effectively implement awareness activities; and,
• Support longer-term projects.

One thing is certain: We need to act on climate change in the Pacific.
By moving away from the ineffective top-down processes of the past, community-based adaptation programs offer new hope.
But are they really the panacea for effective future adaptation? Only time will tell.

Links

• Respect for Creation: Leaders and Religious Groups Confront Climate Change in the Caribbean and South Pacific Islands
• As Fiji Leads COP-23, Camari Koto Reflects on Climate Resilience in the South Pacific Islands
• Necessity Is the Mother of Invention: Islands as the Vanguard of Climate Adaptation
• Corruption, Climate Change, and Vulnerability in Small-Island States
• To Fight Climate Change, Educate and Empower Girls

Why The World Is Looking To The Philippines For Climate Justice

The Conversation - Annalisa Savaresi | Ioana Cismas | Jacques Hartmann

Shutterstock

Corporations and governments around the world increasingly stand accused of causing or failing to prevent the damaging effects of climate change. Test cases are being filed in many countries to establish who is responsible and what action should be taken.
In 2016, after a series of particularly violent typhoons hit the Philippines, a group of Filipino citizens and civil organisations, including Greenpeace, accused 47 corporations of having significantly contributed to climate change, and called for them to be held accountable. Dubbed the “Carbon Majors”, these included the likes of Shell, BP and Chevron.
The group asked the Philippines Human Rights Commission to investigate the Carbon Majors’ responsibility for alleged breaches of Filipinos’ human rights to “life, health, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing and self determination” that are associated with climate change.
The Carbon Majors petition bases its claims on a study by climate expert Richard Heede which attributes “the lion’s share of cumulative global CO2 and methane emissions since the industrial revolution” to the world’s largest producers of crude oil, natural gas, coal and cement.

The Philippines Human Rights Commission is investigating a petition against 47 multinational corporations, dubbed the Carbon Majors, for having significantly contributed to climate change that has caused devastation in the country. Shutterstock

Taking on the big guns
In an unprecedented move, in December 2017, the commission agreed to investigate the Carbon Majors petition. Its powers are relatively modest: the commission can only make recommendations to the Filipino authorities and those found to have breached human rights, but it cannot award damages and it has no enforcement powers. Still, its decision could be a game changer for climate change litigation.
In 2005, a group of Inuit petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to assert the United States’ responsibility for human rights violations associated with climate change in the Arctic. But the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds. So what has changed since then?
In recent years, a long string of United Nations Human Rights Council resolutions has emphasised the role of human rights in tackling climate change. The most recent international climate change treaty – the 2015 Paris Agreement – explicitly links human rights and the obligations of climate change law. These developments seem to have emboldened efforts to use human rights law as a means to tackle climate change.
Far from being an isolated complaint, the Carbon Majors petition is part of a global upsurge in climate change litigation. Yet, there are complex legal obstacles to attributing responsibility for breaches of human rights caused by climate change.
First, applicants have to demonstrate that the obligations of corporations encompass human rights violations associated with the adverse effects of climate change. Second, they have to prove that a specific corporation has contributed to climate change, in such a way that amounts to a breach of human rights.
But a balance has to be struck between environmental protection and other legitimate interests, such as providing energy for consumers. However, John Knox, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, has pointed out that this cannot result in unjustified, foreseeable breaches of human rights. He has also suggested that improved scientific knowledge, such as that used to identify the Carbon Majors, has made it easier to trace the links between particular emissions and resulting harm.

Campaigners believe that climate change caused by the Carbon Majors is breaching the rights of Filipino people to basics such as food, water and shelter whenever a typhoon strikes and destroys entire communities. Shutterstock

A petition for justice
All of these elements come together in the Carbon Majors petition, which concerns harm caused by corporations that was largely foreseeable. Recent research suggests that corporations have long known about climate change and its likely consequences, but have failed to act on it.
So the petition can be likened to ground-breaking litigation for harm caused by smoking tobacco or by driving cars. Before successful court cases were brought, liability for either of these hazardous activities was hard to establish. It was only when courts started to attribute responsibility that victims were provided with redress, and dedicated insurance schemes and liability regimes were created.
The decision of the Philippines Human Rights Commission to investigate the Carbon Majors petition is, then, potentially revolutionary. In 2018, the commission will carry out a series of fact-finding missions and public hearings in the Philippines, London and New York to establish whether multinational corporations can be held responsible for human rights violations associated with climate change and, if so, recommend ways to mitigate them.
Far from being a symbolic gesture, this acknowledgement of multinationals’ role in causing climate change would be a primer, and could potentially spark a domino effect in climate change litigation elsewhere.
Corporations are already being brought to court in the US, where the cities of New York and San Francisco are seeking to hold the world’s biggest oil companies responsible for present and future damage caused by climate change.
All eyes are now on the Philippines to see what conclusions its Human Rights Commission will draw; for many, it has already made history by deciding to investigate the Carbon Majors petition in the first place.

Links

• Climate Change Litigation Databases
• Carbon Majors Study
• New York City sues Shell, ExxonMobil and other oil companies over climate change
• Environmental Activists Are Suing Governments Over Climate Change — And Winning
• 'Sloppy And Careless': Courts Call Out Trump Blitzkrieg On Environmental Rules
• If Climate Change Wrecks Your City, Can It Sue Exxon?
• Newest Youth Climate Lawsuit Targets Washington State
• U.S. Climate Change Litigation In The Age Of Trump: Year One
• International Court Ruling: A Safe Climate Is A Human Right
• Could A Future Labor Government Really Stop The Adani Mine?
• Paris, Inspired By New York City, Considers Climate Suit Against Oil Companies
• 'Everything Is Made Into A Political Issue': Rethinking Australia's Environmental Laws