10/06/2021

(Scientific American) Military Operations Will Be Strained By Climate Change

Scientific American - 



Credit: Alamy


That means faster action is needed to address climate risks in security practices, according to a report by the International Military Council on Climate and Security, a group of officers and experts.

It envisions a world rippling with new threats as conflicts erupt over waning water supplies and disappearing farmland. Operating bases are at risk of being submerged by rising oceans, and military personnel could be retasked to help civilian populations during intensifying disasters.

“As military and security professionals, it is our duty to warn the public about this threat,” Steve Brock, a senior adviser at the Council on Strategic Risks and lead author on the report, said in a statement.

“We must work together to achieve significant emissions reductions to avoid the worst effects of climate change and also invest heavily in the climate resilience of nations that need it in order to avoid instability, conflict and major humanitarian disasters,” he added.

The report recommends directing assistance toward water and food security, disaster preparedness, and encouraging investments in renewable energy and adaptation.

It calls on militaries to integrate climate risk assessments into their security plans, and it urges international actors to develop laws and mechanisms around new climate science, such as geoengineering.

It also includes tools to evaluate current and future climate risks among countries and seek ways to confront them. And it presents findings from a climate security risk perception survey in which experts anticipate “severe-to-catastrophic risks” as soon as 2031, led by natural disasters, increased inequality, biodiversity loss, infectious diseases and forced displacement.

While the effects of climate change threaten military infrastructure, the impact they have on social systems could impose the most pressing security challenges.

Increasing water and food shortages, for example, can drive internal friction or organized crime. A report last month by the Council on Strategic Risks found that climate change could increase the potential for conflict between India and China, in part by intensifying competition over vital water resources (Climatewire, May 17).

The convergence of climate change with other crises—such as pandemics, economic shocks, and extreme drought or flooding—could create “compound” risks that many countries are unprepared to manage, according to yesterday’s report.

“Climate security risks will continue to intensify across all regions, with new disasters hitting before societies can recover from or adapt to the impact of previous ones,” it states. “Fragile regions of the world will continue to face the most severe and catastrophic security consequences of climate change, yet no region is immune.”

Tackling the threats posed by climate change is expected to be a key part of the Group of Seven meeting later this week and NATO on June 14.

President Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget proposal sets aside $617 million for the military to confront the impacts of climate change, with increases in construction spending by the Department of Defense directed toward protecting installations from extreme weather threats (Greenwire, June 1).

It would also put money toward decarbonizing the department’s intense demand for energy. That won’t be an easy lift.

According to a 2019 study by Brown University’s Costs of War project, the Defense Department is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer. Another study by Lancaster University found that the U.S. military emits more greenhouse gases than most countries.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

(AU Environmental Defenders Office) Analysis: The Walls Are Closing In On Fossil Fuels

Environmental Defenders Office - Elaine Johnson



Author
Elaine Johnson is Director of Legal Strategy at the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).
EDO represented the Australian Conservation Foundation in its case against Adani’s North Galilee Water Scheme.
It has been a big couple of weeks in the world of climate litigation, as three significant judgments were handed down by courts in Australia and overseas in cases against Adani, Shell and Whitehaven.

There’s no doubt that the legal landscape has shifted, and climate lawyers everywhere are busy analysing what this means for current and future cases.

But it’s not just climate lawyers who should be taking note. The latest developments in the law have real implications for the future of fossil fuel projects in Australia. Boards, investors and governments should also pay attention.

On May 25, the Australian Conservation Foundation won its case against the Federal Environment Minister’s approval of Adani’s North Galilee Water Scheme. Adani wants to take billions of litres of water from the Suttor River to service its coal mine.

Invalidating the Minister’s approval, the Federal Court found that she is legally bound to assess the impact of the Scheme on Australia’s water resources.

This win is important, because it’s no longer possible for coal and gas companies to avoid scrutiny of their impacts on water resources, which can be substantial, by separating water infrastructure from their mines.

It confirms that major coal and gas projects are subject to scrutiny by the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) for all water impacts. Recently, the Queensland Government relied on IESC advice when it assessed Clive Palmer’s proposal for a greenfield coal mine near the Great Barrier Reef as “not suitable to proceed.”

Next up, on May 26, the Hague District Court delivered a landmark judgment when it found that Royal Dutch Shell has a duty to protect the human rights of Dutch citizens from climate harm.

In an extraordinary development, the court ordered Shell to immediately make plans to reduce its global emissions by 45% by the end of 2030, in line with the Paris Agreement goals.  That order includes emissions caused by the use of its products globally, known as Scope 3 emissions.

Immediately, climate lawyers around the world got very excited. It’s the first time that a court has found a fossil fuel company liable for climate harm. We all instantly recognised that the Shell judgment opened the door for a range of legal cases in development.

If a company like Shell can be held liable for climate harm, this exposes fossil fuel producers everywhere to a heightened risk of litigation. The industry is now one step closer to being on the receiving end of a successful damages claim for climate harm. Boards and financiers around the world will be taking note.

Finally, on May 27, the Federal Court of Australia issued a ground-breaking judgment in a case brought by eight Australian children, led by 16-year-old Anjali Sharma, and represented by Sister Marie Brigid.

In the case, the children were seeking an injunction to stop the Federal Environment Minister approving Whitehaven’s Vickery Coal Mine. 

The court declined to issue the injunction, but significantly, found that the Minister owes a duty to take reasonable care not to cause climate harm to children when deciding whether to approve a new development.

The court also found that climate change poses a real risk of death and personal injury to Australian children, and that 100Mt of greenhouse gas emissions from the Vickery Coal Mine increases that risk of harm.

The Sharma case represents a huge shift in the legal landscape. When deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects, the Minister must now take reasonable care not to cause harm to children.

Yet, the science is clear – in order to achieve a safe climate, remaining fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground. 

The latest report from the International Energy Agency found that there’s no more room for new oil or gas fields, or new or expanded coal projects, in a net zero emissions scenario by 2050.

It’s difficult to see how a reasonable person in the minister’s position could now continue approving new fossil fuel projects, business as usual.

The events of the last couple of weeks have caused a flurry of interest in the legal world, but it’s not just lawyers who should be taking note. It’s fair to say that fossil fuel projects, their proponents, and approvers, are now highly vulnerable to legal challenge.

The walls are closing in, and it’s well past time for a country like Australia to be looking beyond fossil fuels towards a cleaner, smarter, safer future.

That’s something that boards, investors, and governments alike should all be noting.

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

09/06/2021

(AU SBS) Climate Change A Security Threat: Report

SBS - AAP

A new report by former defence and security leaders suggests climate change presents a clear and present danger to the world's collective security.

A new report by former defence and security leaders suggests climate change presents a clear and present danger to the world's collective security. Source: Getty

Australia's 2020 bushfires have been showcased in a new global report as an example of the security risk from climate change.

The World Climate and Security Report, released on Monday by the International Military Council on Climate and Security, looks at the threats posed by the convergence of climate change with other global risks, like COVID-19.

It also examines the intensification of climate risks, with new disasters hitting before communities can recover from or adapt to previous ones.

"Fragile regions of the world will continue to face the most severe and catastrophic security consequences of climate change, yet no region is immune, as demonstrated - for example - by the unprecedented wildfires in the United States and Australia in 2020," the report says.

Evacuees from Mallacoota, Victoria, being transported on a landing craft to Royal Australian Navy (RAN) MV Sycamore during bushfire relief efforts. Source: AAP / Royal Australian Navy
The COVID-19 pandemic showed many countries were unprepared to manage multiple crises simultaneously.

As well, the report points out militaries will be increasingly overstretched as climate change intensifies.

"As the pace and intensity of extreme weather events increases, countries are increasing their reliance on military forces as first responders.

"While direct climate change effects regularly threaten military infrastructure and threaten to reduce readiness, the most pressing security threats will come from climate change-induced disruptions to social systems."

Former Australian defence chief Chris Barrie, who is part of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, said addressing the link between climate and security risk should be a priority.

"This new report reiterates that climate change presents a clear and present danger to our collective security," he said.

"Climate change is already harmfully impacting security environments, infrastructure, institutions, lives and livelihoods.

"A growing number of world leaders, including US President (Joe) Biden, are recognising climate change is an existential security threat and prioritising action on climate and security.

"However, in our region we have yet to come to terms with climate security risks. Australia is being left behind our closest ally and European nations."
 
Audio: Admiral (ret) Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Defence Force; executive member of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group. Source Radio National Breakfast

The group says the federal government should commit to an urgent and comprehensive whole-of-nation climate and security risk assessment.

A survey of security experts, which formed part of the report, found that while "water security" was the issue deemed to be most risky this year, the top issue would switch to "ecosystem security" in 2031 and "national security" in 2041.

The report cites a wide range of examples of climate action taken by governments which could at the same time improve security.

"For instance, a land restoration project may be initiated as a climate adaptation effort, but concurrently create a new carbon sink (mitigation), new opportunities for food production and new livelihoods, and thereby an alternative to joining a local militia."

Climate and security will both be on the agenda of the G7 summit in the UK, which Prime Minister Scott Morrison will attend this weekend as a guest.

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

(The Conversation) Climate Change: World’s Lakes Are In Hot Water – Threatening Rare Wildlife

The Conversation - 

Jdross75/Shutterstock

Author
 is Lecturer in Physical Geography, Keele University     
The Earth’s surface is splotched with 117 million lakes. Some are scarcely more than ponds, while others are so big they can be seen from space.

At 395 miles long, 49 miles wide and just over 1 mile deep, Lake Baikal in Siberia is one of the world’s largest and it’s home to 2,500 species, including the Baikal seal – Earth’s only species of freshwater seal.

Lakes and rivers occupy just 1% of the Earth’s surface but are incredible hotspots for biodiversity, sheltering 10% of all species globally. Particularly in older and deeper lakes, life has had millions of years to evolve and adapt to the peculiarities of that habitat, giving rise to unique forms.

But since 1970, numbers of freshwater vertebrates, including birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, have declined by a staggering 83% through the extraction of lake water, pollution, invasive species and disease. Now, climate change threatens to drive even deeper losses.

Lake heatwaves – when surface water temperatures rise above their average for longer than five days – are a relatively new phenomenon. But by the end of this century, heatwaves could last between three and 12 times longer and become 0.3°C to 1.7°C hotter.

In some places, particularly near the equator, lakes may enter a permanent heatwave state. Smaller lakes may shrink or disappear entirely, along with the wildlife they contain, while deeper lakes will face less intense but longer heatwaves.

Lake Baikal’s age and depth has thrown up several evolutionary quirks. Nature Picture Library/Alamy Stock Photo
In a new study, researchers examined 393 lakes worldwide between 1981 and 2017 and found their temperatures rose by 0.39°C every decade, while dissolved oxygen fell by 5% at the surface and 19% in the depths.

It’s in these cooler, deeper parts of lakes where trout, burbot and salmon usually thrive thanks to sufficient oxygen, especially in the summer. Largely due to warming air temperatures, 68% of the lakes in the study had lost this important niche to rising temperatures and falling oxygen levels.

So what do these changes mean for the other forms of life that call lakes home?

How lake life will change

Most organisms that live in lakes can only thrive in water with just the right temperature and concentration of nutrients and oxygen. Warmer lakes hold less oxygen and lose more water through evaporation, forcing species to live in saltier and less oxygenated habitats.

Things won’t be easy for species which live above the water for most of their lives either. Dragonflies are a common sight flitting among the reeds on the lake side. They lay their eggs in the shallows, but as lakes are lowered or dry out during more frequent and severe heatwaves, this protection is lost. Those larvae which survive are likely to emerge early, when food and habitat may be lacking.

Climate change will shift the types of organisms we find in lakes. Cold water fish, such as trout and salmon, need cooler temperatures and higher oxygen concentrations than warm water species such as largemouth bass and white perch. One cold-loving species, Arctic char, could vanish from 73% of its Swedish range by 2100 just as a result of warming.

Meanwhile, rising temperatures could mean parasites that infect fish grow faster and larger. In one study, parasitic worms infecting stickleback fish grew four times faster in water at 20°C compared to 15°C.

Heatwaves could accelerate the spread and size of pathogens in fish, with huge consequences for the aquaculture industry and wild populations. Human diseases, transmitted by freshwater organisms, may also increase.

Naegleria fowleri is a lake parasite that flourishes in warmer temperatures. Known as the brain-eating amoeba, this microbe can cause fatal meningoencephalitis if it enters the body through the nose. Prolonged periods when lake waters remain warmer than average could see this parasite expand into more temperate waters.

Since warmer surface waters hold more nutrients, climate change could cause an explosion in the number of microscopic algae that live in lakes. These microorganisms are the base of the food web and the foundation of life in these habitats. But this isn’t the good news it seems.

When nutrients are abundant, huge quantities of these algae can form a thick green (or sometimes red) blanket on the lake surface. These algal blooms not only look unsightly, they often produce harmful toxins.

Heatwaves are increasing the frequency of harmful algal blooms and causing mass mortality events where thousands of animals die in a few days. Algal blooms block out the light and suffocate fish, either by crashing oxygen levels or clogging up their gills. A 100 metre-wide, 15cm-deep algal bloom in Loch Leven in Scotland in 1992 killed 1,000 brown trout over 24 hours.

Lake algal blooms are likely to be more frequent and severe as Earth warms. O Partime Photo/Shutterstock

Unlike those living elsewhere, most lake animals cannot simply move to another habitat once their lake becomes uninhabitable. But even migratory species will suffer. In August 2004, 15,000 flamingos died on a lake in Tanzania after consuming toxins produced by algal blooms.

As heatwaves proliferate and oxygen levels decline, mass fish die-offs are predicted to double from the 2040s in lakes in the northern hemisphere and increase fourfold in the southern hemisphere from the 2080s onwards.

Without immediate action to curb emissions and slow climate change, many of the world’s lakes are on course for a sweltering, breathless and lifeless future.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

(Forbes) Climate Change Could Batter World’s Wealthiest Economies Twice As Badly As Covid, Oxfam Says

Forbes - Carlie Porterfield

G7 countries will lose $5tn a year by 2050 if temperatures rise by 2.6C

Ocean Rebellion protesters portrayed Prime Minister Boris Johnson and an oil company’s archetypal corporate shill over the weekend in Cornwall. In Pictures via Getty Images

The world’s seven richest countries are in danger of losing nearly $5 trillion a year within the next three decades over the catastrophic results of climate change, British charity Oxfam said Monday, a loss double that of the damage done by the coronavirus pandemic.

Ocean Rebellion protesters portrayed Prime Minister Boris Johnson and an oil company’s archetypal corporate shill over the weekend in Cornwall. In Pictures via Getty Images

Key Facts

  • G7 countries can expect to count an average GDP shrinkage of 8.5% annually by 2050 if existing climate change trends continue, according to an Oxfam analysis of Swiss Re Institute research.

  • The coronavirus pandemic, which triggered widespread unemployment, sharp drops in spending and record stimulus packages, only saw those seven countries’ GDP drop by an average of 4.2%.

  • Oxfam pointed out that, unlike the coronavirus pandemic, the economy won’t “bounce back” from the damage brought on by climate change—researchers project its economic effects will only grow worse each year.

  • Climate change could adversely affect the economy through an increase in storms, floods and droughts, which could result in mass human migration, property damage, trade disruptions and falling productivity, according to the Swiss Re Institute. 

  • Poorer countries are even worse off, according to Oxfam: India could lose 27% of its economy by 2050, and the GDP of the Republic of the Philippines could shrink by 35% within the same time frame.
“The climate crisis is already devastating lives in poorer countries, but the world’s most developed economies are not immune,” Oxfam GB CEO Danny Sriskandarajah said in a statement Monday.

Big Number

132 million. That’s how many additional people worldwide could be forced into extreme poverty between now and 2030 over climate change, according to the World Bank.

What To Watch For


Oxfam is calling for G7 countries to strengthen their climate action goals and cut more carbon. The move would have economic benefits, according to Oxfam. While current projections show the U.K. economy shrinking by 6.5% by 2050, the country could reduce damage to a 2.4% slide if G7 countries were to shift gears to better follow the Paris Agreement.

Key Background


The world’s seven richest countries are slated to come together this week in Cornwall, England, for the first in-person G7 Summit since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. 

While the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada have all set carbon emission goals, most fall short of necessary adjustments that will keep global warming below 1.5°C, the level outlined in the Paris Agreement that experts say would trigger catastrophic climate change, according to Oxfam. 

A study released in March found that the world would need the equivalent of a coronavirus lockdown every two years to meet the goals set forth in the Paris Agreement. The U.K. will host G7 talks dedicated to climate change this fall in Glasgow.

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

08/06/2021

(AU SMH) Survey Reveals A World Still Hooked On Coal Despite Best Intentions

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

Plans are in place to increase global coal capacity by almost a third of the 2019 total despite global ambitions to abandon it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.

The Mount Arthur coal mine near Muswellbrook in the Upper Hunter. Credit: Janie Barrett

The new coal capacity of 2277 million tonnes per annum, which includes both mines planned and those under construction, runs contrary to the International Energy Agency’s roadmap to global net zero emissions by 2050, which shows the world would need to reduce capacity by 11 per cent a year over the coming decade to hit Paris Agreement targets.

   
If all 432 new mines developments and expansions went ahead without unprecedented cutbacks in existing production over the next decade, proposed capacity could boost supply to over four times a 1.5 degrees-compliant pathway, according to a survey of the industry published on Friday by Global Energy Monitor, a United States-based environmental organisation.

Australia is one of the four nations with the biggest plans for new coal development, along with China, India and Russia. Together the four nations have 1750 million tonnes of coal mine capacity in the pipeline, or over three-quarters of the global total.

The world’s largest energy conglomerates, such as Glencore, Mechel, and BHP, remain invested in new mines and mine expansions, though small and independent firms have shown the greatest appetites for new projects, especially in Australia and Russia.

Climate policy
Climate concerns resume rise as coal mine ban draws support, Lowy says
About 70 per cent of the new coal capacity planned is for thermal coal used to make electricity, rather than metallurgical coal that is needed for steel production. Should the capacity come online, it would produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as the United States.

The report’s chief author Ryan Driscoll Tate said demand for coal is plummeting and financing for new coal projects is drying up.

“New mines and expansions of existing mines will be producing coal for a world in which coal is unviable economically and untenable for the environment,” he said.

The report comes as the Group of Seven wealthy nations increases its efforts to step away from coal. In May the G7 announced its members had agreed to end international finance of coal projects that emit carbon by the end of the year and to phase out all fossil fuels.

The Welzow-Sud open-cast coal mine in Germany’s Brandenburg state. Credit: The New York Times
The declaration was considered significant because it included the support of Japan which has wavered on the issue, and because it was made in the weeks before the coming G7 summit on June 11, to which Australia has been invited even though it is not a G7 member.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is the host of both the G7 summit and this year’s COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, is expected to use the summit to push for increased climate action, particularly from Australia which is yet to announce a more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction emissions target.

The COP26 president Alok Sharma said in a speech in mid-May, “If we are serious about 1.5 degrees, Glasgow must be the COP that consigns coal to history… we are working directly with governments, and through international organisations, to end international coal financing. This is a personal priority. And to urge countries to abandon coal power, with the G7 leading the way.”

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has emphasised Australia’s preference to get to net zero by 2050 and the government’s so-called technology roadmap to achieve emission reductions without increasing taxes.

Climate policy
Britain’s top diplomat to Australia urges more climate ambition as Morrison vows to do it our way
A UK government official told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on Friday that Australia’s policies were not viewed as credible in climate diplomacy circles.

“You can have a roadmap to lose 10 kilos in six months, but if you’re not exercising now and if you’ve got no plans to start, it’s really hard to see how you are going to get there.”

She said Japan’s support for the G7’s declaration was particularly significant for Australia because it signalled a shift away from coal for Australia’s biggest coal customer.

Japan imports 170 million tonnes of coal each year, around 60 per cent of it from Australia, and burns around twice as much Australian coal as Australia does, according to a new report released by the Australia Institute this week.

Japan has 162 coal-fired power plants operating and a further 16 are planned for the future.

At a US-Japan Leaders’ summit in April, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga signed the US–Japan Climate Partnership on Ambition, Decarbonization and Clean Energy.

Japan announced it would cut its GHG emissions to 46 per cent below 2013 levels by 2030, with the aim of achieving a 50 per cent reduction.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

(UK The Telegraph) Climate Goals Caught In A Litigation Trap

The Telegraph - 

Energy giants are using international trade tribunals to claim damages over governments’ green policies

It was hailed as a “stunning victory” for climate change activists. A Dutch court last month ruled that Shell would have to cut its CO2 emissions by 45pc by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

It was the first time a large company had been legally obliged to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement, marking what some said was a historic moment in the fight against global warming.

But this was just one victory in a wider political war. Behind the scenes a far more brutal battle has been playing out between politicians and corporations – one that threatens to derail climate targets all together.

Energy giants are increasingly using an obscure legal system to bypass domestic courts and sue governments for billions in earnings they deem to have been unfairly lost as a result of government action on climate change.

German energy giant RWE, for instance, is suing the Netherlands for €1.4bn (£1.2bn) for its plans to phase out coal. Uniper has filed a similar claim, while UK company Rockhopper is suing Italy over a ban on new oil and gas drilling near the country’s coast.

‘Chilling effect’

“They’re aiming at a chilling effect so the target is not just the Netherlands government, they are trying to send a warning signal to other governments,” says Jean Blaylock, a policy manager at campaign group Global Justice Now.

The legal rights to sue are written into thousands of investment treaties worldwide, including the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which allows companies to sue any of the 53 signatory countries – including the UK – if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

Oil rig platforms at sea. The UK is extremely vulnerable to legal action by the biggest polluting companies because it has fossil fuel infrastructure worth more than £120bn, according to analysis by Investigate Europe.  Credit: iStockphoto 
Politicians, keen to secure post-Brexit trade deals, are also continuing to consider them as part of free trade agreements.

The British trade minister recently confirmed that the legal mechanism, known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), is being discussed in the final negotiations for the Australia-UK free trade agreement.

Proponents of ISDS say it encourages foreign investment because it stops governments from taking action that companies deem to be unfair.

But its impact could be devastating, experts warn. Blaylock says the ISDS is an “appallingly biased system” that gives large corporations a powerful tool to challenge decisions made following democratic processes. “It needs to be understood as completely disreputable for a company to use it.”

The UK is extremely vulnerable to this kind of legal action because it has fossil fuel infrastructure worth more than £120bn, according to an analysis by Investigate Europe.

Lawsuits expose gulf between polluters’ words and actions

In November, the UK will host the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, where it is hoped that leaders will devise a global plan to drive greenhouse gas emissions to an average of zero to stabilise the climate.

“Everything good you envision coming out of [COP26] is in jeopardy if you don’t take proactive steps to remove this litigation trap that has been set in treaties that hardly anyone has ever heard of,” says Gus Van Harten, law professor at York University, Toronto.

The ISDS system was designed to protect corporations that invested in countries with uncertain legal situations from expropriation of assets and other mistreatment.

Its scope, however, is so broad that companies now use it to sue for compensation if government policy might affect current or future earnings, and has been used to challenge decisions where courts have ruled in favour of climate campaigners.

Fossil fuel demand goes into precipitous decline under the IEA's net zero scenario

Source: IEA
There is no cap on the damages that tribunals can award – which totalled $50bn (£35bn) in one case – and a state’s goods and assets abroad can be seized in payment.

Countries cannot use the system to sue companies, nor is it open to domestic companies. In practice, the only companies that can afford to bring cases are deep-pocketed multinational corporations and investors.

The lawsuits shine a light on the apparent gulf between companies’ words and actions on climate change. RWE, for example, has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2040 and trumpets its €5bn (£4bn) investment in wind and solar power by 2022. But it remains Europe’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide and does not plan to stop burning lignite, the most polluting grade of coal, until 2038.

While the Netherlands can afford a costly lawsuit, Blaylock says developing countries might delay taking climate action for fear of being landed with legal bills they cannot pay.

China is by far the world's largest emitter of C02
Top 10 global carbon emitters in 2019 plus the UK (billions of tonnes C02)
Billions of tonnes C02
Source: Our World In Data/GCP/CDIAC
Even if the companies lose, she claims these cases could slow down action on climate change with devastating effects.

“In the context of the climate crisis, we’ve already wasted so much time. If it ends up being delayed for just another five years, we can’t afford that.”

Climate targets in jeopardy

Adriaan van der Maarel, a spokesman for RWE, said: “We are not against the phase-out of coal but we are against the fact that there is no compensation in this law.”

He says RWE is not trying to influence other governments’ actions on climate change.

Uniper says its case is focused on the legality of the Netherlands phasing out coal without compensation. It says it is not seeking a specific level of compensation, although the coal plant in question cost €1.6bn.

There have been attempts to reform the ECT but progress is slow and France and Spain, along with a number of MEPs from across the EU, have suggested withdrawing from the treaty, which they say poses a serious threat to their climate targets.

The UK’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says it supports efforts to modernise the ECT but would not be drawn on what that entails. A spokesman says: “The UK supports the work of the Energy Charter Treaty in promoting investment in the energy sector and fostering international energy cooperation, including in the development of renewable energy worldwide.”

As campaigners increasingly use the courts to push for a tougher response to climate change, governments now face legal action on two fronts: from companies, if they bring in policies to tackle climate change that damage earnings; and from campaigners, if policies are not considered sufficient to meet their commitments to meet the Paris climate agreement.

Greenhouse gas emissions targets
Source: Energy Systems Catapult 

Van Harten says that is another reason countries should remove themselves from treaties that include ISDS, but notes that not all forms of litigation are created equal.

“The tools available to people trying to protect their future by suing for climate action are vastly weaker than the tools available to fossil fuel companies.”

The imbalance risks undermining the world’s environmental efforts and setting countries back decades on their climate goals.

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

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative