17/11/2021

(AU New Daily) Alan Kohler: We Must Not Let Scott Morrison Get Away With Do-Nothing Climate Plan

 New Daily - Alan Kohler

The media must call out the Prime Minister's misleading claims, writes Alan Kohler. Photo: TND/AAP



Author
Alan Kohler writes twice a week for The New Daily. He is also editor in chief of Eureka Report and finance presenter on ABC News.
After 25 failed UN-led attempts to do something about global warming, number 26 has been presented with a revolutionary new scheme by the Australian government.

The idea is blindingly simple, and could take the world by storm as it were: Just predict that the private sector will take care of climate change.

A voluntary price on carbon (not a tax, mind) plus private sector innovation will achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, job done.

Governments have to do almost nothing.

We’ll never know for sure whether Australia’s stunning breakthrough contributed to the struggles in Glasgow, but it probably did.

As suggested here two weeks ago, Australia punches above its weight on these matters because there are other countries looking for an easy way out. The Australian way looks appealing.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison laid his idea out most clearly in a speech to the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry last week: “[Climate change] will be fixed painstakingly, step by step, by the entrepreneurs, by scientists, by technologists, by innovators, by industrialists, by financiers, by risk-takers. That’s the Australian way.”

The modelling subsequently released on Friday did not even pretend that this approach will achieve net-zero emissions: It gets us to 85 per cent, after which the great spirit of technology will carry us the rest of the way to 100 per cent net zero on a golden staircase of innovation.

In fact, it’s clear from the modelling that the only reason the Morrison plan exists at all is to prevent an increase in Australia’s cost of capital caused by the world’s banks and investment houses shunning this country.

Net-zero spin

The sheer audacity of what Morrison is doing is breathtaking: To say it’s a plan when it’s a forecast; to say it will achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 when the document itself says it won’t; to say it’s “technology not taxes” when it relies on voluntary carbon pricing of between $24 and $400 per tonne that will be passed on to consumers; to say Australia is leading the world when we’re actually coming last.

It seems to spring from a combination of the Prime Minister’s character, so brilliantly described in Sean Kelly’s book, The Game – a portrait of Scott Morrison, and an extreme version of the actual game that’s played by both main parties.

In his book, Kelly writes: “When Scott Morrison declared on election night that he believed in miracles, he meant the phrase literally.”

And: “The more useful way to think about the effect of Morrison’s faith on his political career is to see in it a sensibility. Rather than offering him a doctrine, its elements have structured the way in which he perceives the world.

“The first element is an abiding optimism …”

“This is closely related to a second element: The sense of certainty that can come from believing that God has you in his hands – that he has a plan …”

When it comes to something that affects the whole planet and human race, the whole of creation no less, how can someone who believes in the pre-eminence of God’s plan for each one of us think that humans should, or even can, interfere in it.

So leaving it to the private sector and technology, supervised by God, makes perfect sense.

Labor in a bind

The politics of the Morrison plan, meanwhile, look shattering – for Labor.

The Prime Minister will now campaign on doing next to nothing about climate change because it’s going to turn out OK thanks to the private sector – it will basically take care of itself.

Therefore whatever the Labor Party proposes on climate change will have to be something, not nothing, which means it can be attacked as a cost, a tax or a dictate.

ALP leader Anthony Albanese is in a tight spot now.

He must either go for broke, boldly announcing the phasing out of coal, a new emissions trading scheme and a ban on internal combustion vehicles by, say 2040, and try to win the cities with that, or match Morrison’s nothing plan and campaign about something else.

A half-measure will please no one.

Both strategies are enormously risky – unless Morrison falters, which looks unlikely at the moment.

Which is why the media must now become players in this drama.

The role of the media

The reason Scott Morrison knows he’s pretty safe with an obvious non-policy is that most of the mainstream media tries to be politically even-handed, and is inclined to show respect to a Prime Minister.

But most media company directors and journalists also understand that we actually do face an emergency from global warming, and that it may not be true that private technology will take care of it, or that preventing disaster will be cost-free – it will just be cheaper than the disaster.

So we need to call him out, constantly, every day, and apply truth in advertising standards to election ads as well.

Climate change is not just politics, and shouldn’t be reported as just politics.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , , , ,

16/11/2021

(AU The Age) Good COP, Bad COP: Climate Wins And Losses From Glasgow

The Age - Lesley Hughes | Wesley Morgan

Authors
  • Lesley Hughes, a Climate Council spokeswoman, is a professor of biology and pro vice-chancellor at Macquarie University.
  • Dr Wesley Morgan is a Climate Council researcher.
COP26 has finished and the question on everyone’s minds is: “was it a success or a failure?” Climate change is the world’s most wicked and complex problem, so there is no simple answer.

But let’s start with the pretty good. Intense pre-COP negotiations resulted in a number of substantial commitments in the first week of the meeting.

On day two, there was the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests & Land Use, a global pledge to end and reverse deforestation by 2030.

More than 100 countries signed up, covering land containing about 85 per cent of the world’s forests.

The declaration included pledges of about $26 billion of private and public finance.

COP26 President Alok Sharma speaks at the close of COP26. Credit: Getty

Day two also saw the announcement of the Global Methane Pledge, designed to reduce methane 30 per cent by 2030.

More than 100 countries signed up, representing about 70 per cent of the global economy.

Coal was the focus of day three, culminating in more than 190 countries and organisations signing up to the Global Coal to Clean Energy Transition Statement.

This is aimed at phasing out coal power and ending support for new coal power stations. Signatories included Vietnam, a potential major destination for Australian coal.

A deal has been reached at the COP26 Glasgow climate summit between 197 countries, with coal power being "phased down".

In the second week, after most world leaders had gone home and the negotiators got down to the business of drafting the final statement, a joint announcement from the US and China caught many by surprise.

The US-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s outlined an agreement to boost co-operation on climate action.

Importantly, “2020s” is mentioned eight times in the body of the declaration, signalling that the world’s two biggest emitters understand the importance of near-term action to avert climate catastrophe.

Emphasis on action “by 2030” is among the most significant themes of the final Glasgow Climate Pact. All countries are urged to “revisit and strengthen” 2030 targets in advance of COP27 in Egypt next year.
Countries have also agreed on “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”.

This sentence alone captures the complexity of the negotiations. On the one hand, this is the first explicit mention of coal and fossil fuels in 26 years of COP declarations and decisions.

On the other, the words “unabated”, “inefficient” and “phase-down” may be viewed as get-out-of-jail-free cards for some fossil-fuel consuming and exporting countries.
While many countries brought an increased level of ambition for emissions reduction to the Glasgow table, the ultimate goal of “keeping 1.5 alive” – that is, keeping warming to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels – has not been met.

Analysis by Climate Action Tracker shows that even with the new 2030 pledges, a global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees by the end of the century is a real possibility.

This means catastrophically more severe climate extremes, and sinking prospects, literally, for low-lying nations, including many of our Pacific neighbours.

Another major disappointment is that the developed world fell short of fulfilling a decade-old promise to deliver $US100 billion each year to help poorer nations deal with climate impacts.

So who were the bad COPs in Glasgow? There is one that consistently stood out. Australia.

Perhaps nothing was more symbolic of Australia’s lack of commitment to the goals of the Glasgow COP than the pride of place at the Australian pavilion given to Santos, one of our largest gas and oil companies.

Multiple assessments of Australia’s commitment and actions to reduce dangerous climate change have ranked us at the bottom of the international pack.

The “Australian Way” plan to get to net zero by 2050 is a hotchpotch of creative accounting, claiming credit for emission reduction actions of the states and territories and the previous Labor government, spruiking technology that doesn’t work, and magical thinking about technology that hasn’t been invented yet.

Glasgow summitThe Glasgow summit’s final agreement:
what you need to know
On top of this, the government has refused to strengthen Australia’s 2030 emissions targets – the weakest in the developed world – and refused to sign on to commitments to reduce methane and transition out of coal.

Everyday Australians and businesses pay a high price for the Morrison government being out of step with the rest of the world.

Not only does Australia continue to obfuscate and delay, we are only contributing about a 10th of our fair share to help poorer nations cope with the climate impacts we have helped cause.

At the end of each COP, the Climate Action Network, an international umbrella organisation of over 1000 groups devoted to increased climate action, presents the Colossal Fossil Award to the country or organisation deemed to have been least helpful at meeting the objectives of the meeting.

No prizes for guessing who got it this year.

Glasgow Climate Summit
Explore

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

(The Conversation) The Ultimate Guide To Why The COP26 Summit Ended In Failure And Disappointment (Despite A Few Bright Spots)

The Conversation -  | 

AP

Authors
  •  is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University
  •  is Director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University     
After two hard-fought weeks of negotiations, the Glasgow climate change summit is, at last, over.

All 197 participating countries adopted the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact, despite an 11th hour intervention by India in which the final agreement was watered down from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down”.

In an emotional final speech, COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for this last-minute change.

His apology goes to the heart of the goals of COP26 in Glasgow: the hope it would deliver outcomes matching the urgent “code red” action needed to achieve the Paris Agreement target.

At the summit’s outset, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to “keep the goal of 1.5℃ alive”, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the global economy, and to phase out coal.

So, was COP26 a failure? If we evaluate this using the summits original stated goals, the answer is yes, it fell short. Two big ticket items weren’t realised: renewing targets for 2030 that align with limiting warming to 1.5℃, and an agreement on accelerating the phase-out of coal.

But among the failures, there were important decisions and notable bright spots. So let’s take a look at the summit’s defining issues. Weak 2030 targets

The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2℃ this century, and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5℃. Catastrophic impacts will be unleashed beyond this point, such as sea level rise and more intense and frequent natural disasters.

But new projections from Climate Action Tracker show even if all COP26 pledges are met, the planet is on track to warm by 2.1℃ – or 2.4℃ if only 2030 targets are met.

Despite the Australian government’s recent climate announcements, this nation’s 2030 target remains the same as in 2015. If all countries adopted such meagre near-term targets, global temperature rise would be on track for up to 3℃.

Technically, the 1.5℃ limit is still within reach because, under the Glasgow pact, countries are asked to update their 2030 targets in a year’s time. However, as Sharma said, “the pulse of 1.5 is weak”.

And as Australia’s experience shows, domestic politics rather than international pressure is often the force driving climate policy. So there are no guarantees Australia or other nations will deliver greater ambition in 2022.

Thousands of activists and protesters march in Glasgow to demand action from world leaders to combat the climate crisis. EPA/ROBERT PERRY

Phase down, not out

India’s intervention to change the final wording to “phase down” coal rather than “phase out” dampens the urgency to shift away from coal.

India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the United States.

The country relies heavily on coal, and coal-powered generation is expected to grow by 4.6% each year to 2024. India was the most prominent objector to the “phase out” wording, but also had support from China.

And US climate envoy John Kerry argued that carbon capture and storage technology could be developed further, to trap emissions at the source and store them underground.

Carbon capture and storage is a controversial proposition for climate action. It is not proven at scale, and we don’t yet know if captured emissions stored underground will eventually return to the atmosphere. And around the world, relatively few large-scale underground storage locations exist.

And it’s hard to see this expensive technology ever being cost-competitive with cheap renewable energy.

In a crucial outcome, COP26 also finalised rules for global carbon trading, known as Article 6 under the Paris Agreement. However under the rules, the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions and carry on polluting.

Combined with the “phasing down” change, this will see fossil fuel emissions continue.

COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for the last-minute change in the wording of the pact, from ‘phasing out coal’ to ‘phasing down’.  AP Photo/Alastair Grant

It wasn’t all bad

Despite the shortcomings, COP26 led to a number of important positive outcomes.

The world has taken an unambiguous turn away from fossil fuel as a source of energy. And the 1.5℃ global warming target has taken centre stage, with the recognition that reaching this target will require rapid, deep and sustained emissions reductions of 45% by 2030, relative to 2010 levels.

What’s more, the pact emphasises the importance to mitigation of nature and ecosystems, including protecting forests and biodiversity. This comes on top of a side deal struck by Australia and 123 other countries promising to end deforestation by 2030.

The pact also urges countries to fully deliver on an outstanding promise to deliver US$100 billion per year for five years to developing countries vulnerable to climate damage. It also emphasises the importance of transparency in implementing the pledges.

Nations are also invited to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022. In support of this, it was agreed to hold a high-level ministerial roundtable meeting each year focused on raising ambition out to 2030.

The US and China climate agreement is also cause for cautious optimism.

Despite the world not being on track for the 1.5℃ goal, momentum is headed in the right direction. And the mere fact that a reduction in coal use was directly addressed in the final text signals change may be possible.

But whether it comes in the small window we have left to stop catastrophic climate change remains to be seen. 

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

(The Conversation) COP26: The Glasgow Climate Summit Demonstrates An Appetite For Change Australia Simply Can’t Ignore

The Conversation - 

Alberto Pezzali/AP
Author
 is Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University
COP26 president Alok Sharma has described the pivotal United Nations talks, which concluded over the weekend, as only a “fragile win” for ambition on climate change.

But, against the odds, the summit produced the goods on several important aspects of international climate policy.

It resolved tricky outstanding issues for implementing the Paris Agreement. And most importantly, it reinforced the multilateral consensus that much stronger climate action is needed in both the short and long term.

Stabilising the climate depends on a lot more than the outcome of multilateral negotiations like Glasgow. But those agreements set a frame for real-world decisions.

Here’s a preliminary interpretation of some of the decisions at COP26 on climate change mitigation, and the implications for Australia.

Some were unhappy with the COP26 outcome, but it created momentum for change. Alastair Grant/AP
Coal power “phase down”

Global climate negotiations are usually a relentless grind, with occasional fireworks. One such firework moment came in the final session when India, supported by China, demanded the Glasgow Climate Pact’s language on coal should be weakened from “phase-out” to “phasedown” of unabated coal power.

To prevent the disagreement scuttling the entire deal, the revision was agreed to, despite bitter protests by many countries intent on stronger action.

The wording of United Nations agreements is cumbersome, but deliberate. Here’s the full reference to coal in the final COP26 text. It calls on the parties to the Paris Agreement to:
accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances and recognising the need for support towards a just transition.
(By way of definition, “unabated” coal power refers to the absence of carbon capture and storage in power stations. This technology is very expensive for power generation and unlikely to be used at large scale.)

So what does the above text mean, exactly? At the core of it, the international community is spelling out an expectation that countries strive to greatly reduce the use of coal in electricity generation, and to stop subsidising fossil fuels. The original “phase-out” language would obviously have meant nations should stop using unabated coal power altogether.

On the face of it, the change in wording makes a big difference. But the signal to investors in coal mining and coal power plants is the same: the international community has decided coal-fired power must fall, and its end is coming.

No previous United Nations climate change decision has so directly called for action to cut fossil fuels. So even the weakened language is unprecedented.

What’s more, nations can act independently of – and more ambitiously than – the wording in the COP agreement.

For example, China recently pledged to rely much less on coal power and stop building coal-fired power stations abroad. And the surprise US-China joint declaration on climate change announced at Glasgow enshrines the “elimination of support for unabated international thermal coal power generation”.

The international market for thermal coal – the type burned for electricity – will shrink and could do so quickly. Australia is the world’s number two thermal coal exporter behind Indonesia. We’d better get used to the fact the business is in decline.

The market for thermal coal is likely to shrink quickly. Li Bin/AP

Ratcheting up 2030 targets

Another key aspect of the Glasgow pact is the call for stronger 2030 emissions targets and short-term action.

By the end of next year, nations are asked to strengthen their 2030 targets to align with the 1.5℃ temperature goal. This puts big pressure on Australia.

The federal government still retains the very weak target of a 26-28% emissions reduction by 2030, based on 2005 levels, and recently said the target will be exceeded by up to 9%. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s insistence on Sunday that the target is “fixed” will not cut it over the next year.

Almost all other developed countries have strengthened their targets already, some greatly so. An important reference point is the United States, which has adopted a 50-52% reduction target in the same time frame.

In yet stronger language, the Glasgow pact “urges” countries that haven’t yet submitted a long-term emissions-reduction strategy to do so by next year’s conference.

This puts the onus on the federal government. Its recent “plan” to reach net-zero by 2050 falls far short of the mark of what constitutes a real national strategy.

Countries without a long-term emissions-reduction strategy should address this by next year. Alex Plaveski/EPA
International carbon trading

 COP26 managed to resolve an issue that had proven extremely difficult since the Paris talks – rules for future international carbon markets.

The compromise reached appears to largely close loopholes for double-counting of emissions reduction. What kind and extent of international emissions markets will emerge under the Paris Agreement framework remains to be seen. However, the rules to underpin them are now available.

From an Australian perspective, an outcome on international emissions markets is very positive. Australian governments and negotiators have worked to help make it happen.

It opens the door to Australian companies or governments purchasing emissions reductions achieved in other countries, if this turned out cheaper than acting more strongly to cut emissions at home. It will also help Australia work with countries in the Pacific and Southeast Asia to reduce emissions there, and to share the resulting emissions reductions between countries.

Australia’s large land mass and unlimited potential for cheap renewable energy means it’s better positioned than most countries to become a net-negative emissions economy in the long term. In other words, Australia could one day remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than it emits.

So an international carbon trading framework means Australia could eventually sell emissions reduction credits to other countries, and the revenue could fund large-scale CO₂ removal from the atmosphere.

A momentum that cannot be ignored

Earth’s climate will not be determined by what is agreed at global climate talks, but by the actions that businesses and people take, and the policies governments put in place.

The Glasgow outcome, however, shows there is global resolve to get on top of the problem. Governments that might prefer the old ways of a carbon-intensive economy cannot ignore that momentum.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

15/11/2021

(The Guardian) Cop26 Reactions: ‘Rich Nations Have Kicked The Can Down The Road’

The Guardian - Guardian staff

Cop26 president Alok Sharma, centre, speaks during the UN climate conference. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Diplomats, scientists, charities and NGOs have been commenting on the adoption of the “Glasgow climate pact” at the end of the Cop26 conference. Here are some of their initial thoughts.

Laurence Tubiana, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris deal and now CEO of the European Climate Foundation

“Paris is working. Despite the Covid-19 crisis, we have accelerated action, responded to the [scientists’] call to close the gap towards 1.5C, and coal is in the text. But there is a lot more to do.

"The commitments and claims of the first week on finance, forests, end of public finance for fossil fuel, methane and cars must now be translated into real policy and oil and gas production still to be addressed.

“This Cop has failed to provide immediate assistance for people suffering now. I welcome the doubling of adaptation finance as climate impacts are every year stronger, [but] loss and damage must be at the top of the agenda for Cop27."

Vanessa Nakate, climate activist from Uganda

“Even if leaders stuck to the promises they have made here in Glasgow, it would not prevent the destruction of communities like mine. Right now, at 1.2C of global warming, drought and flooding are killing people in Uganda.

"Only immediate, drastic emissions cuts will give us hope of safety, and world leaders have failed to rise to the moment.

“But people are joining our movement. 100,000 people from all different backgrounds came to the streets in Glasgow during Cop and the pressure for change is building.”

Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa

“This summit has been a triumph of diplomacy over real substance. The outcome here reflects a Cop held in the rich world and the outcome contains the priorities of the rich world.

“We are leaving empty-handed [on loss and damage] but morally stronger and hopeful that we can sustain the momentum in the coming year to deliver meaningful support which will allow the vulnerables to deal with the irreversible impacts of climate change created by the polluting world who are failing to take responsibility.”

Alden Meyer, senior associate at the thinktank E3G

“We saw a call here in Glasgow for emergency actions to deal with the existential threat of climate change – and some important initiatives were launched. But whether enough countries raise their 2030 ambition enough to keep 1.5C in reach [when they return in 2022] will be the real test of the success of this Cop26.

“As a lifelong optimist, I see the Glasgow outcome as half-full rather than half-empty. But the atmosphere responds to emissions – not Cop decisions – and much work remains ahead to translate the strong rhetoric here into reality.”

José Gregorio Mirabal Díaz, elected leader of Coica (an umbrella body that includes indigenous leaders from the nine Amazon nations)

“We will always have the hope that we can stop the climate crisis with the support of all, but until now the extractivism development model has deceived the world. This must change now.

“If the solution is to protect nature to avoid climate change, this can only be done with giving land titles for indigenous peoples, allowing us to self-demarcate our territories so that external invasions do not come, whether of oil, gold, mining or any type of extractive exploitation.”

Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International

[On India rewording the language from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down”]

“They changed a word but they can’t change the signal coming out of this Cop, that the era of coal is ending. If you’re a coal company executive, this Cop saw a bad outcome.

“It’s in the interests of all countries, including those who still burn coal, to transition to clean renewable energy, and richer countries need to do more to support the shift. Our future depends on it.”

Rachel Kennerley, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth

“The road to 1.5C just got harder when these talks should have cleared the way to making it a whole lot easier.

“The UK government cunningly curated announcements throughout this fortnight so that it seemed rapid progress was being made. Here we are though, and the Glasgow get-out clause means that leaders failed to phase out fossil fuels and the richest countries won’t pay historic climate debt.

“With the Cop moment over, countries should break away from the pack in their race for meaningful climate action and let history judge the laggards.

"The UK, as a country with huge historical responsibility for emissions, can end support for a mega gas project in Mozambique, pull the plug on the Cambo oilfield, stop the new coalmine in Cumbria and drilling for oil in Surrey. After all, the prime minister talked a big game at the beginning of the fortnight.”

Amanda Mukwashi, CEO of Christian Aid

“We were told that Cop26 was the last best chance to keep 1.5C alive but it’s been placed on life support. Rich nations have kicked the can down the road and with it the promise of the urgent climate action people on the frontline of this crisis need.

“After two weeks of negotiations, the voices of those experiencing the harsh impacts of climate change have largely been excluded and not been heeded. Warm words on loss and damage and finance for developing countries to adapt to climate change are not good enough.

"Rich nations need to accept their responsibility, put their money where their mouths are, and provide the billions needed. Developing nations have done the least to cause this crisis but have shown commitment to tackling it.”

Lord Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change

“Overall, Cop26 has been a major step along the way, but it has still left us far short of the target of limiting warming to 1.5C. That it is why it is so important that countries agree to put forward by the end of next year more ambitious pledges for emissions cuts by 2030.

"Cop26 embodied a shared understanding of just how dangerous our current path is, and indeed the dangers of warming beyond 1.5C.

“There is so much work to do over the next 12 months ahead of Cop27 in Egypt. The work on finance will be crucial to raising ambition. If we are slow to unlock the finance, we will be slow to raise the ambition.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

(Deutsche Welle) COP26: 'Blah, Blah, Blah' As World Nears Climate 'Catastrophe'

Deutsche Welle

Despite governments reaching a global climate agreement at the Glasgow conference, many have been left disappointed with the outcome. Climate campaigners say it's not enough to contain dangerous temperature rises.

After two weeks of climate talks, many left Glasgow disappointed with the compromise negotiators reached

After two weeks of tortuous negotiations, delegates of nearly 200 nations gathered in Scotland's Glasgow city reached an agreement on Saturday to combat climate change.   

The deal "gives us confidence that we can provide a safe and prosperous space for humanity on this planet,'' said Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, the EU's executive arm. However, she warned "there is still hard work ahead" and stressed that "there will be no time to relax." The EU's lead negotiator, Franz Timmermans, said the text agreed "keeps alive the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius." He also added that "it is a text which acknowledges the needs of developing countries for climate finance, and sets out a process to deliver on those needs.''

Germany's Environment Minister Svenja Schulze underlined that the pact would speed up global action against global warming and climate change.

"Glasgow is bringing a clear acceleration for climate change, and more speed is necessary," she said. "The fossil fuel era is coming to an end, the energy transition is becoming the model worldwide."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose country hosted the talks, said the deal was a big step forward and he hoped it would mark the beginning of the end of climate change.

"There is still a huge amount more to do in the coming years," Johnson said in a statement. "But today's agreement is a big step forward and, critically, we have the first-ever international agreement to phase down coal and a roadmap to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

"I hope that we will look back on COP26 in Glasgow as the beginning of the end of climate change, and I will continue to work tirelessly towards that goal." Late drama over coal

 There was last-minute drama at the conference, with India raising objections to the text related to coal use in the agreement.

Following India's objections, the language of the deal was watered down from "phasing out" to "phasing down" coal power, weakening the original text.

European countries, environmental campaigners and some small island states that are most under threat from global warming criticized the changes.

Tina Stege, the climate envoy of Marshall Islands, said that the package "is not perfect," pointing out that the change of text on coal and a weak outcome on loss and damage "are blows."

Still, she stressed that progress was made. "It is real progress and elements of the Glasgow package are a lifeline for my country. We must not discount the crucial wins covered in this package."

Alok Sharma. the British official who chaired the Glasgow talks, said he wished he had been able to preserve the originally agreed language on phasing out coal power in the deal.

"Of course I wish that we had managed to preserve the language on coal that was originally agreed," he said. "Nevertheless, we do have language on coal, on phase down, and I don't think anyone at the start of this process would have necessarily expected that that would have been retained."

US and China pledge more cooperation on climate 2min 42sec

'Era of coal is ending'

US climate envoy John Kerry said governments had no choice but to accept India's coal language change, "If we hadn't done that we wouldn't have had an agreement." But he insisted the deal was good news for the world.

"We are in fact closer than we have ever been before to avoiding climate chaos and securing cleaning air, safer water and healthier planet,'' he said later at a news conference.

Climate NGO Greenpeace's executive director Jennifer Morgan stressed that the "era of coal is ending."

"They changed a word but they can't change the signal coming out of this COP, that the era of coal is ending," she said. "If you're a coal company executive this COP saw a bad outcome."
  Indonesia: Coal power comes at a high cost 2min 14sec

'Extreme disappointment' over 'loss and damage'

Vulnerable and poorer nations have argued for decades that rich countries owe them compensation for the irreversible damages from climate shocks.

But wealthy countries fear being found liable for natural calamities and having to pay massive sums in compensation every time an environmental disaster strikes.

As a result, no UN climate conference has resulted in any funding under the "loss and damage" tag for the countries most affected.

The Glasgow pact also failed to make much progress on the issue, given resistance from the US, the EU and some other rich nations.

Guinea, representing the developing-nation group at the talks, expressed "extreme disappointment" at the decision to initiate only a "dialogue" to talk about "arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimize and address loss and damage."

Low-lying small island nations that fear losing much of their land to rising sea levels — from the Marshall Islands to Fiji and Antigua — also said they were dissatisfied the fund they had called for had not been created.

Effects of deforestation in South America 2min 46sec

Nothing but 'blah, blah, blah'

 UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that the agreement was a compromise.

"The approved texts are a compromise. They reflect the interests, the conditions, the contradictions and the state of political will in the world today," he said.

"They take important steps, but unfortunately the collective political will was not enough to overcome some deep contradictions."

He also warned that our planet is "hanging by a thread" and that "we are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe." Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, meanwhile, said that the COP26 talks had achieved nothing but "blah, blah, blah."

"The real work continues outside these halls. And we will never give up, ever," the figurehead of the Fridays for Future movement posted on Twitter.

Links

Posted by at No comments :

(AU Climate Council) COP26 Ends With Stark Warning: Step Up On Emission Cuts This Decade Aus, Or Pay The Price

Climate Council


AUSTRALIA’S international reputation has taken a battering as nations leave COP26 with a renewed sense of urgency to act on climate change this decade.

The negotiations, which came to an end around 6.45am AEDT this morning, place enormous pressure on Australia to step up its efforts during the critical years ahead.

The Glasgow Climate Pact requires countries to strengthen their 2030 climate targets in 2022, recognising global emissions must fall 45 per cent by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C – a matter of survival for many vulnerable communities.
For the first time in 26 years of COP summits, there is a specific call to move beyond coal power and phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
Climate Council Head of Research Dr Simon Bradshaw said 140 countries lifted their game on climate action at COP26, while Australia cemented its reputation as a laggard and blocker.

“The federal government showed up empty-handed to a pivotal moment in the fight for our future. They’ve let down our Pacific neighbours, as well as Australians who do not deserve to endure more frequent and severe bushfires, floods, droughts and heatwaves,” Dr Bradshaw said.

“As our allies and trading partners rise to the climate challenge, we’re stuck in a polluting past with a handful of countries including Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Government’s own Net Zero modelling, released two days ago, predicts Australia will still be a major coal and gas exporter in 2050.

“The Glasgow Climate Pact has made it very clear that our government must come back to the table next year with a stronger 2030 target. It’s time to slash carbon pollution this decade, as if our futures depended on it – because they do.”

Pledges made at COP26 still leave the world on track for over 2°C of warming, and so success depends on these commitments and actions being rapidly scaled up in the wake of Glasgow.

Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “The federal government has tarnished Australia’s good name in Glasgow failing to put forward a meaningful 2030 emissions reduction target.

“All Australians will pay the price. We’re the sunniest country in the world but we’re missing opportunities in the clean energy race. We are feeling the worsening consequences of climate change.

“Australians all over the country are doing their best and will rightly be disappointed. They are rolling up their sleeves to do more on climate, but the Morrison government is all talk no action. It’s downright reckless.

“The Morrison government must do better. All new fossil fuel expansion must cease, and we need to phase out their use as quickly as possible. Let’s show the world what we’re really made of.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative