18/08/2019

Environmental Destruction Is A War Crime, But It’s Almost Impossible To Fall Foul Of The Laws

The Conversation - 

It was defoliants, seen here during Operation Ranch Hand in the Vietnam War, that prompted action to protect the environment during conflicts. National Museum of the US Air Force 




This inspired a number of headlines that misleadingly said the scientists want environmental destruction to be made a war crime.
But environmental destruction is already recognised as a war crime by the International Criminal Court. The existing legal framework governing armed conflict also provides some protections for the environment.
The problem is these protections are inadequate, inconsistent, unclear, and most military behaviour won’t fall foul of these laws.

The legal protections already in place
There are currently four Geneva Conventions and three Additional Protocols that are supposed to regulate conduct during armed conflict, sometimes known as the rules of war.
The original four Geneva Conventions, which celebrate their 70th anniversary this year, contain no explicit mention of the natural environment.
The use of Agent Orange (and Agents White and Blue) to defoliate huge spans of land during the Vietnam War led to the introduction of the first specific protections for the environment during armed conflict.


Following the Vietnam War, two major developments in the law occurred.

The first was the adoption of the United Nation’s Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques Convention (ENMOD) that prohibits the hostile use of environment-altering techniques that have “widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects”.
The second was the inclusion of provisions in Additional Protocol I (API) that prohibits methods or means intended or expected to cause “widespread, long term, and severe damage to the natural environment” during warfare.

Near impossibly high standards
Both treaties set a very high threshold for falling foul of the prohibitions. API requires that all three elements of damage — widespread, long term, and severe — must be met for military action to be in violation of this provision.
The consequence is that most military behaviour, even when damaging the environment, won’t be in violation of these laws.
Making it even more difficult, the meaning of the three terms differs between the two, and there is ongoing disagreement as to their definition.
While an understanding was reached to determine the definitions in ENMOD, there is still dispute about the meaning of the terms in API. The definitions provided here are among the more commonly accepted. Shireen Daft, Author provided
The only environmental destruction in recent times that has been considered to meet such a high threshold was the setting alight of Kuwaiti oil fields by Iraqi forces as they withdrew during the 1991 Gulf War.
A Kuwaiti oil well fire, south of Kuwait City, in March 1991. Wikimedia/EdJF, CC BY
The United Nations Compensation Commission held Iraq liable for the environmental damage caused in Kuwait. But because Iraq was not a party to either ENMOD or API, the Commission applied a unique legal standard derived from Security Council Resolution 687 and Iraq is still paying compensation to Kuwait to this day.
Neither ENMOD nor API specifies that a breach of these provisions constitutes a war crime. This came in 2002 when the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court came into force.
The Rome Statute says it is a war crime to intentionally cause “widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive” to the military advantage to be obtained.
The terms are not defined in the Rome Statute, and what is meant by “clearly excessive” is subjective, and introduces a test of proportionality.

Another Geneva Convention?
A new international agreement that balances the interests of environmental protection and respects the laws on armed conflict could be of enormous benefit.
The existing legal framework is only equipped to deal with direct attacks on the natural environment.
But this ignores the many other ways the environment is affected by conflict. Resources such as diamonds, coltan, timber and ivory are all used to help fund conflicts, and this can place enormous stress on the environment.
A particular gap is that no consideration is given in the existing framework to non-human species - to wildlife affected by war or to animals used for military purposes. Yet conflict has proved the biggest predictor of population declines in wild species.
But a new treaty that creates strong, effective, and enforceable protections requires significant political will.
An attempt was made two decades ago, headed by Greenpeace, but no agreement could be reached. That attempt was made during a time when international cooperation and treaty development was at its highest, following the end of the Cold War.
In the current political and social environment it seems unlikely any attempt for such an agreement would be successful. At best, we would see watered-down protections, no stronger than what is already in place. Thus drafting such a Convention now could do more harm than good, in the long run.

If not a new treaty, then what?
The International Law Commission (ILC) is about to release its report dealing with the issue of protecting the environment during armed conflict. This was what inspired the Open Letter from the scientists in the first place.
The Draft Principles it is producing are not new principles of law, but those already found in the existing legal framework. Unfortunately the work produced so far continues to use “widespread, long term, and severe” with no clarity as to what they mean.
But they do confirm that all the fundamental principles of the rules of war apply to the environment, and should be interpreted “with a view to its protection”. The environment should not be a target, and the impact on the environment must be taken into consideration in military operations.
The work of the ILC should inform governments of the interpretation of existing law. Governments should then give more attention to the environment in the operational guidelines used by their militaries.
The Australian Law of Armed Conflict manual, used by our defence forces, already acknowledges they have a duty to protect the natural environment. The next step is to move beyond this general principle to the specific, and have clear guidelines about what protecting the environment during armed conflict means, in practice.
The International Committee of the Red Cross is also currently updating its guidelines for all military manuals to ensure the environment is a consideration to be evaluated during all military operations.
While the world might not yet be ready to consider a new Geneva Convention relating to the environment, the survival of our natural environment does depend on changes being made to the way the war is conducted.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Australia Urgently Needs Real Sustainable Agriculture Policy

The Conversation - 

           Australia must invest in sustainable agriculture. Author provided
Australia has made a global commitment to “sustainable agriculture”, an endeavour seen as increasingly crucial to ending world poverty, halting biodiversity loss, and combating climate change. A recent report from the UN found land use – including food production – is responsible for around one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Unfortunately, Australia has something of a sustainable agriculture policy vacuum, after years of a fragmented, stop-start approach.
To honour our international obligations and respond to growing sustainability markets, Australia urgently needs a contemporary definition of sustainable agriculture, including agreed on-farm metrics.

Good policy abandoned
Australia spent more than a decade developing promising policies that defined sustainable agriculture with broad indicators for measuring progress.
In 1997 Australia passed federal legislation defining “sustainable agriculture” as:
agricultural practices and systems that maintain or improve […] the economic viability of agricultural production; the social viability and well-being of rural communities; […] biodiversity; the natural resource base [and] ecosystems that are influenced by agricultural activities.
The following year, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management published a broad set indicators.
During the early 2000s a national framework of Environmental Management Systems was developed, and national pilots were conducted across Australia up until 2006.
Between 2004 and 2006 the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded farmers’ investment in natural resource management. However these surveys have not been replicated in more than a decade.
In 2005, the states and territories formed a joint working group to create a national approach to property management systems. This group met with industry representatives and regional land managers throughout 2006, and in 2007 the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry planned a pathway for a national policy. There was much hope and enthusiasm it would soon become a reality.
However, since 2008 there has been no progress and little, if any, explanation for why this important sustainable agriculture policy initiative was shelved.

Current policy vacuum
It is concerning that Australia’s first progress report on implementing the sustainable development goals contains the words “sustainable agriculture” only once in 130 pages, as part of the heading for the goal of ending hunger.
The definition arrived at in 1997 is far too broad and simplistic, and can’t be used at the farm level.
When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture reiterated their commitment to improving sustainable food production, and said:
Australia is involved in global discussions about how best to measure sustainable agriculture performance […] However a globally agreed methodology has not been set for [agricultural sustainability].
Australia’s only substantial sustainable agriculture policy mechanism at the moment appears to be grants available through the National Landcare Program. This is reiterated by searching through key Coalition policy documents and the recent budget.
The budget allocation to the overall National Landcare Program is around A$1 billion from 2017 to 2023. New programs announced in the 2019 budget that build on this commitment include:
  • A$100 million over four years for the environment restoration fund,
  • A$34 million over four years for a new biodiversity stewardship program,
  • A$28.3 million for a new communities environment program for 2019-20, and
  • A$2 billion over 15 years for the climate solutions fund.
These programs combined equate to some A$354 million per year. But a coherent sustainable agriculture policy cannot be delivered through grants alone.
And even though these grants are substantial, past ABS surveys found that farmers invest at least A$3 billion a year in natural resource management. The Indigenous on-country contribution is currently unknown, but likely to be substantial.

Caring for country fund
Around 10% of Australia’s population lives in rural or remote areas. These comparatively small communities – largely farmers and Indigenous land managers – currently steward most of the country.
A review released in late July on how conservation laws affect the agriculture sector has recommended the federal government create a A$1 billion fund for farmers who deliver environment benefits from their land.
This mirrors calls from farmers for an ecosystem services fund.
If our 13.9 million taxpayers contributed some A$60 each per year in a “caring for country” levy, urban and rural Australians could more fairly share the costs – as well as the advantages – of sustainable land management.
We could start with revisiting the good work undertaken more than a decade ago in developing a national framework for property management systems.
Underpinning such a system, we need an independent and trusted source of metrics for farmers, land managers and agricultural industries. To this end, the University of New England is establishing a research hub to help develop just such a harmonised approach.
There are many good news stories of sustainable agriculture around Australia, however our ongoing biodiversity crisis requires transformative policy change and federal leadership.
One bold first step would be addressing the current paradox of sustainable agriculture in Australia.

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

It's A Global Death Sentence To Keep Eating Like This: Dinnertime At The Foreclaws

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

A quarter of worldwide emissions is from food production.
No more engastrated confit wagyu chicken, mother!

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Scott Morrison's Betrayal Of The Pacific Was Immoral – And Completely Unnecessary

The Guardian - 

Australia’s regional and global influence will not grow unless we are fair dinkum about acting on climate change
Scott Morrison refused to listen to the words of Tuvalu’s prime minister, Enele Sopoaga, when he urged leaders to focus on ‘survival, not saving the economies of countries’. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
Nicky Ison
Nicky Ison is a founding director of the Community Power Agency and a research associate at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.
As the Pacific Islands Forum comes to an end, Australia has yet again been shamed on a global stage for our inaction on climate change.
The forum was held in Tuvalu, one of the lowest lying islands on Earth, where the effects of sea level rise are already being seen.
For Tuvalu, a global commitment to limiting climate change to 1.5C is literally a question of survival.
By doing everything he could to water down the forum communique’s climate language, the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, refused to listen to the words of Tuvalu’s prime minister, Enele Sopoaga, when he urged leaders to focus on “survival, not saving the economies of countries”.
However, in a country like Australia, even that is a false choice. Australia more so than almost any other country has the opportunity to prosper economically through decarbonisation. We can, as they say, have our cake and eat it too.
The pathway to global decarbonisation relies heavily on the shift from coal, oil and gas to renewable resources. In a decarbonised world not only do we power our homes and businesses with renewables, but we also power our cars, buses, trains and industry with wind, solar and storage. With technologies like electric vehicles, hydrogen buses and electromagnetic industrial heating, this is all eminently possible.
As a country with some of the best solar and wind resources in the world, vast areas of land, a low population and manufacturing base and strong trading relationships particularly in Asia, Australia is uniquely positioned to help decarbonise our region. Indeed, it is not only our Pacific neighbours who are asking for our help. Our biggest trading partners – Japan, South Korea and Taiwan – are looking eagerly at Australia’s renewable resources to help them act on climate.
Already, there are plans in development to export solar energy to Singapore through a Sun Cable from the Northern Territory. Macquarie Capital is financing the development of the Asia Renewable Energy Hub in Western Australia. This project, which has recently grown to 15GW of solar and wind, will not only power the mining operations of the Pilbara and increased onshore minerals refining, it will also generate renewable hydrogen that can be exported to our neighbours.
This week, Pacific leaders asked Australia to stop expanding our coal industry. As a country that has been exporting coal since 1799, this request came as an affront to our federal government. However, given that coal is the biggest cause of climate change and Australia’s largest contribution, we cannot be serious about stopping climate change without planning to move beyond coal.
While moving away from coal will have its challenges, it is possible. It is also better to restructure our economy deliberately, supporting those who work in the coal industry, than for these communities to be left to the whims of global market forces.
Already the Latrobe Valley Authority is showing how we might do this. From electric vehicle manufacturing, to investment in transport infrastructure, to more jobs in healthcare, their efforts to diversify the economy of the Latrobe Valley in Victoria are showing progress.
Restructuring our economy does not happen over night, but we need to recognise that it has already started. In the past three years $9bn have been invested in building renewable energy generation. According to Macromonitor, the renewables boom is “currently the largest contributor to overall growth in construction in Australia”, helping to keep our economy moving forward. However, this boom will not continue without new policy as the renewable energy target comes to an end.
With our economy stagnate and interest rates low, now is the time to invest in the future of Australia and in the process help ensure the survival of our neighbours.
However, if the moral and economic arguments for acting on climate change are insufficient to move our recalcitrant federal government, perhaps the geopolitical argument will be more persuasive.
China is actively working to strengthen its position in the Pacific, seeing this as a strategic location. Their efforts include backing the calls by Pacific leaders to act on climate and phase-out coal power, as well as direct support for infrastructure and renewable energy deployment in the Pacific. As a country that has globally committed to climate leadership, China has both the moral authority and the economic leverage to make Australia increasingly irrelevant. Scott Morison’s performance at the Pacific Island Forum has not helped this situation.
Australia’s regional and global influence will not grow unless we are fair dinkum about acting on climate change. Without greater domestic action, we may be able to throw our weight around at the Pacific Islands Forum, but we will slowly lose our geopolitical, economic and moral authority in a world that has committed to act on the climate crisis.

 Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

17/08/2019

How Rising Sea Levels Erase Culture

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick Galvin

Of all the myriad, insidious impact of climate change, its corrosive effect on culture has received comparatively little attention.
But for the 1200 people living on the tiny, remote pacific island nation of Tokelau and the 10,000 or so Tokelauans in New Zealand and Australia, the climate crisis threatens not only their physical home but the very survival of their culture.
Te Molimau is a new production by Tokelauan-Samoan writer and actor Taofia Pelesasa. It is set in the year 2060, by which time it is estimated low-lying Tokelau will have disappeared entirely.
Director Emele Ugavule (left) with actors Lesina Ateli-Ugavule, Tommy Misa and Iya Ware. Credit: Dom Lorrimer
The play looks at the last hour of the nation through the eyes of the one remaining resident, a young woman called Vitolina.
"It imagines what it might look like for us Tokelauans to watch our island disappear because the rest of the world didn’t take action," says director Emele Ugavule.
As storms have worsened and seawater has encroached ever further onto the three atolls that make up Tokelau, residents have left in even greater numbers.
It imagines what it might look like for us Tokelauans to watch our island disappear because the rest of the world didn’t take action.
Director Emele Ugavule
Many have settled in New Zealand, where they have citizenship, while a significant proportion has moved to live around New South Wales' Mt Druitt area.
"That impacts our language and our culture," she says. "The current estimate is that only 30 per cent of Tokelauans living outside Tokelau speak our language fluently.
"Our understanding of how to care for the land and the ocean is embedded in our language.
"And our cultural practices like singing and dancing are embedded in our everyday life in the islands – how do we maintain that in a context where we have to make money to survive rather than grow fish or food to surive?"
Ugavule says the play is an important milsetone for her country.
"It’s a really big deal for us," she says. "We don’t know of any other work that has been about Tokelau ever."
And it is being staged at a particularly opportune time as leaders, including Prime Minister Scott Morrison, gather this week for the Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu, where climate change will once again be top of the agenda.
Ugavule hopes the play will encourage empathy among the audience and maybe inspire some to take action.
"It’s a very emotional experience for everyone involved," she says. "The entire play is our lived experience and our families’ lived experience."

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

Revealed: 'Fierce' Pacific Forum Meeting Almost Collapsed Over Climate Crisis

The Guardian - 

Australia’s prime minister Scott Morrison came under fire from Tuvalu’s leader Enele Sopoaga
Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, speaks after the Pacific Islands Forum. He clashed with Tuvalu’s leader, Enele Sopoaga, over Australia’s climate policy in 12-hour talks on Thursday. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
Critical talks at the Pacific Islands Forum almost collapsed twice amid “fierce” clashes between the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, and Tuvalu’s prime minister, Enele Sopoaga, over Australia’s “red lines” on climate change.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s foreign minister, who was part of the drafting committee of the forum communique and observed the leaders’ retreat, said there was heated discussion over the Australian delegation’s insistence on the removal of references to coal, setting a target of limiting global warming to below 1.5C and announcing a strategy for zero emissions by 2050.
He described the discussions as “frank, fierce at times, [with] very strong positions being held”.
“Negotiations almost broke down twice, [with leaders] saying ‘this is not going to happen, we’re not going to have a collective decision’,” he said. Leaders had to take a break from proceedings, which started about 9.30am local time and lasted for almost 12 hours.
“That’s why it took so long,” Regenvanu said. “When things break down, you know there’s a huge amount of frustration, luckily it didn’t break all the way down and the leaders were able to bring it back.”
Leaders had to cancel meetings and press conferences scheduled for the afternoon, as the retreat stretched through the afternoon and well into the night. An evening feast that was meant to mark the close of the forum, prepared by the community from one of Tuvalu’s atolls, complete with a traditional dance performance, began without the leaders.
The leaders of Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Fiji and Samoa talk before the group photo at the Pacific Island Forum. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/EPA
Regenvanu said one compromise proposed to resolve the impasse was to declare a climate crisis for the Pacific island states, which do not include Australia, rather than for the whole region. Regenvanu said Australia had agreed to that “in total blindness to what’s happening in their own country”.
“On emissions reduction and dealing with your own climate, Australia is out there, they’re not with us,” he said. “Pretty much on everything else we’re on the same team, in terms of mitigation, adaptation, making sure there’s resourcing for all this, it’s only in terms of domestic emissions strategy that Australia is way out.”
Asked whether the breakdowns came because of Australia’s refusal to budge on its positions on climate change, Regenvanu said “that would not be an incorrect assumption”. He said it was mostly Sopoaga who took the fight to Australia.
Speaking on Friday morning at a joint press conference with Morrison, Sopoaga said he had told the Australian prime minister during the retreat: “‘You are concerned about saving your economies, your situation in Australia, I’m concerned about saving my people in Tuvalu and likewise other leaders of small island countries.’”
“That was the tone of the discussion,” Sopoaga said. “Please don’t expect that [Australia] comes and we bow down or that ... we were exchanging flarey language, not swearing, but of course you know, expressing the concerns of leaders and I was very happy with the exchange of ideas, it was frank. Prime minister Morrison, of course, stated his position and I stated my position and [that of] other leaders: we need to save these people.”
Sopoaga said the discussions were so passionate that the prime minister of Tonga cried at the retreat while talking about two young women who had presented to leaders on Monday about the impacts of the climate crisis.
“The leader of Tonga actually shed tears in front of the leaders for the passion about referring to the presentation of the two young warriors of climate change the other day,” said Sopoaga. “That was the atmosphere.”
Tuvalu’s prime minister, Enele Sopoaga, had heated discussions with Scott Morrison. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 
Fiji’s prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, expressed unhappiness with the declarations on Thursday night. “We came together in a nation that risks disappearing to the seas, but, unfortunately we settled for the communique,” he said on Twitter. “Watered-down climate language has real consequences – like water-logged homes, schools, communities, and ancestral burial grounds.”
Despite the concessions to Australia throughout the communique and climate change statement, Sopoaga said he thought leaders had achieved “probably the best outcome given the context and circumstances”.
Regenvanu said that apart from the five red lines that “compromised” the documents, the resulting statement was a “stronger statement on climate change than the forum has ever made”.
“There was reference to 1.5 [degrees warming] throughout, reference to supporting the science of the IPCC report, supporting all the stuff the UN secretary general talked about, just transition away from fossil fuels, stopping inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
“So most of the language that we wanted is in there and I think it’s a much stronger statement on climate change than the forum has ever made. That’s the positive,” he said.
“I think it’s a credit to [the leaders] what we ended up with something and that we all can live with it. We all can implement it, we all can own it, including Australia.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Pacific Leaders, Australia Agree To Disagree About Action On Climate Change

ABC News - Melissa Clarke

Mr Morrison said the views of smaller nations within the Pacific Islands Forum were not binding on the rest of the group. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)
Key points:
  • Australia expressed reservations about several sections, and New Zealand at least one
  • This means no country has fully committed to endorsing the Tuvalu Declaration
  • "I think we can say we should've done more work for our people," Tuvalu's Prime Minister said
Australia has stymied efforts by small island states to get Pacific-wide consensus on their declaration for stronger action on climate change.
Regional leaders, including Australia and New Zealand, held 12-hour talks in the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu for this year's Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), eventually reaching an agreement on a statement on climate change and a communique early this morning.
They could not reach agreement on the Tuvalu Declaration made by smaller Pacific countries, instead drafting a separate Kainaki II Declaration, with different terms on coal use and emissions reduction.
The finished communique comes with a qualification that means the leaders do not support all of the declaration from the smaller nations.
Earlier in the week, the Smaller Island States (SIS) group agreed to the Tuvalu Declaration, which acknowledges a climate change crisis, encourages countries to revise the emissions reductions targets and calls for a rapid phase out of coal use.
Introducing Tuvalu
Prime Minister Scott Morrison will arrive in Tuvalu, one of the smallest and least-visited nations on Earth, for the annual gathering of Pacific leaders, who have named climate change as their top issue.
They had hoped the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum, which includes Australia and New Zealand, would endorse it.
But Australia expressed reservations about several sections, and New Zealand at least one, so the final communique endorses the Smaller Island States "with qualifications".
That means no country has fully committed to endorsing the Tuvalu Declaration.
Speaking after the marathon leaders meeting, Mr Morrison said he wanted the SIS group to be able to express its views "freely" but that its statement was not binding on the rest of the forum.
"The Pacific Island Forum has its leaders meeting and it agrees to the things that it agrees. And then the Small Island States have their own forum that sit within that," he said.
"And it's not incumbent on the leaders' forum to have to run a ruler over that."

'The Prime Minister of Tonga actually cried'
Tuvalu's Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga made climate change the central focus of the meeting. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)
That disappointed the PIF chair, Tuvalu's Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who said as he left the meeting: "We tried our best".
Mr Sopoaga had invested significant time and energy in making climate change the central focus of the meeting, and pushed for the Tuvalu Declaration to be adopted by Australia, but was resigned to the alternative outcome.
Negotiations were heated, particularly between Mr Sopoaga and Mr Morrison.
Pacific pivot undermined
Australia is being warned its return to its Pacific neighbours after years of neglect risks being undermined by the Government's intransigence on the region's main threat: climate change.
"We expressed very strongly during our exchange, between me and Scott [Morrison], I said: 'You are concerned about saving your economy in Australia … I am concerned about saving my people in Tuvalu,'" Mr Sopoaga said.
"That was the tone of the discussion. Please don't expect that we come and bow down … we were exchanging flaring language — not swearing — but of course expressing the concerns of leaders."
"The Prime Minister of Tonga actually cried in the meeting … shed tears in front of the leaders, such is the passion."
The outcome falls short of what Mr Sopoaga and some other Pacific leaders had hoped.
"It was a negotiated outcome, I think it still contains some references to the (UN) Secretary-General's message to accelerate actions against climate change and it's a way forward," he said.
"I think we can say we should've done more work for our people."

How do the declarations differ on key issues?
Pacific leaders called on Australia to do more to make a faster transition away from coal-generated power. (Supplied)
Emissions reductions
  • Tuvalu Declaration
    "Encourage all countries to revise their nationally determined contributions so as to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
  • Kainaki II Declaration
    "Call for... all parties to the Paris Agreement to meet or exceed their nationally determined contributions."
Climate change and the ADF
Australia's Defence Department has spelled out clearly to a Senate inquiry that climate change will create "concurrency pressures" for the Defence Force as a rise in disaster relief operations continues.
Coal use
  • Tuvalu Declaration
    "We re-affirm the UN Secretary-General's call for an immediate global ban on the construction of new coal-fired power plants and coal mines and ... [call on them to] rapidly phase out their use of coal in the power sector."
  • Kainaki II Declaration
    "Invite all parties to the Paris Agreement to reflect" on the UN Secretary-General's remarks on "fossil fuel subsidies and just transition from fossil fuels."
    "[Call on] the members of the G7 and G20 to rapidly implement their commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies."
Green climate fund
  • Tuvalu Declaration
    "We call for a prompt, ambitious and successful replenishment of the Green Climate Fund."
  • Kainaki II Declaration
    The international community "continues efforts towards" meeting international funding commitments, "including the replenishment of the Green Climate Fund."
Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative