Sunday, October 31, 2021

WV
Paid leave's demise tough on backers in Manchin's home state

 
West Virginia Sarah Clemente snuggles with daughter Penelope Clemente, 6, at their home in Charleston, W.Va., on Saturday, Oct. 30, 2021. Clemente supported a paid family medical leave proposal that was removed from President Joe Biden's social spending plan because of opposition from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves)






Brittanie Hairston, right, hands out candy at a Halloween festival in Charleston, W.Va., on Friday, Oct. 29, 2021. Hairston supported a paid family medical leave proposal that was removed from President Joe Biden's social spending plan because of opposition from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. Hairston said paid leave would ease worries about what would happen in one of her sons got sick. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves)

JAY REEVES
Sun, October 31, 2021

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Jessi Garman, the mother of 3-year-old twin girls, has been searching for a job while also trying to have a third child with her husband, who's in the military. Optimistic that Congress finally would approve paid family medical leave, she thought the time seemed right.

But that was before opposition by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia torpedoed the proposal. Both having another baby and getting full-time work doesn't seem feasible now, and Garman's hopefulness has turned into anger.

“It almost feels personal because Joe Manchin is my senator,” said Garman, of Milton.

Supporters of a decades-old proposal to let workers take time off for medical needs including childbirth, surgeries and end-of-life care are dealing with another disappointment in Manchin's home of West Virginia, a poor state with one of the nation's oldest populations.

State activists are still working on Manchin — a pro-leave group planned to rent an airplane and fly a banner over one of his political fundraisers at a resort this weekend, said Kayla Young, a member of the state House of Delegates who also is helping with an advocacy group, Paid Leave Works for West Virginia. They hope some version of paid leave may still be included in President Joe Biden's social spending package.

“It’s disheartening, but I don’t think it’s over yet,” said Young.

Sarah Clemente hopes Young is right, since paid leave would have made things easier with all three of her children. Instead, she said, she had to take off a total of two years and return to work just a week after the birth of her youngest — Penelope, now 6 — whom she and husband Ryan adopted from a relative who couldn't care for her.

“We followed the textbook on what you’re supposed to do to be responsible, successful adults. And while we are there now, there was a lot of suffering and heartbreak,” said Clemente, a 40-year-old health care manager. “And it's still hard.”

Biden initially proposed 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents, people caring for loved ones or people recovering from an illness, but it wasn’t included in a $1.7 trillion framework released by the White House on Thursday after Manchin’s opposition became clear. Manchin, whose support is crucial because of the slim Democratic edge in the Senate, said he wanted to avoid turning the United States into “an entitlement society.”

Democrats continue lobbying the senator, but he hasn't shown signs of budging despite proposals to trim leave from 12 weeks to four or to restrict it to just new parents. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said she has spoken extensively with Manchin and he asked good questions, but he wasn’t focused on specifics of the proposal and had concerns about its cost.

In Manchin’s home county in northern West Virginia, Amber Gabor allowed that some time off would have come in handy when one of her kids — ages 2, 7 and 9, with another one expected in a couple of weeks — had to stay home for two weeks after a coronavirus case at his school. But 12 weeks of paid leave sounded excessive to her.

“I don’t see why you would need all that at one time, unless it was a maternity type of leave. But most (work) places offer that anyway,” said Gabor, who works from home doing customer service for a power company.

In the rural town of Spencer, dental receptionist Samantha Camp is one of those who say they will continue to get by without a paid leave option just as they always have — with difficulty.

Camp will keep paying about $50 monthly for the disability insurance she buys as a hedge against having to miss work because of a bone problem that resulted in hip replacement surgery last year. After the operation, she felt she had no choice but to return earlier than doctors recommended to her job at a small law firm where she worked at the time.

“It was very worrisome being with no income,” said Camp, 34. “The doctors wanted to put me off for about six weeks. I just knew I couldn’t do that financially. I was actually off only two and a half weeks.”

Chris Hedges, a partner in the law firm, said it gave Camp all the vacation time it could scrape together and having government-funded leave would have made things so much better.

“For small businesses to be able to afford paid leave is just about impossible," Hedges said. “The paid leave that would have come about through Biden’s bill would have helped. It would have helped us retain employees.”

On Charleston's west side, which is home to many working class and poor people, Brittanie Hairston said paid leave would have eased her worries about what would happen if one of her sons, ages 6 and 10, were to get sick with COVID-19 or something else.

“I can't go back to work until they're clear,” she said.

And Mildred Tompkins, who works with a health and education nonprofit in the state capital, said her own two daughters, who are in their 20s and working in relatively low-paid health care jobs, would have benefited from paid leave.

“For people that are just regular, right at the poverty line and working," she said, “it would make a difference.”

___

Associated Press writers John Raby in Fairmont, W.Va., and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

Manchin said paid-leave programs could entice fraud, inquired about work requirements: report

John L. Dorman
Sun, October 31, 2021

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Drew Angerer/Getty Images


Manchin pointed to potential fraud as one of his concerns about paid leave, per The Washington Post.


Manchin's opposition to federal paid leave has caused consternation among many of his colleagues.


Sen. Patty Murray said last week that she objected to "one man" denying US women paid leave.


For months, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has served as a moderate Democratic bulwark against the most ambitious elements of the "Build Back Better agenda" championed by President Joe Biden, which ranged from two years of tuition-free community college to a broad expansion of Medicare to cover dental and vision benefits, among other proposals.

However, one of the most sought-after proposals among Democrats was the implementation of paid family and medical leave for the millions of Americans who currently aren't able to access such benefits.

The White House earlier this year sought to subsidize 12 weeks of paid sick and parental leave, costing $500 billion over a decade, in what would have been a larger $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill - which had already come down from the $6 trillion figure that Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders of Vermont had envisioned.

With the reconciliation bill being pared down from $3.5 trillion to roughly $1.75 trillion, the proposal for paid leave, which had been at 12 weeks, was reduced to 4 weeks - but by week's end, the entire paid-leave plan was seemingly cut from the framework being crafted by Biden and congressional Democratic leaders.

Manchin has stood firm against paid leave, citing its cost and potential strain on the federal budget.

However, according to a Washington Post report that detailed the push by Democratic women to save the family leave last week, Manchin has a series of "evolving concerns" about the benefit program, based on the statements of five individuals who spoke anonymously.

Manchin was reportedly concerned that a paid-leave program could generate fraud, comparing such malfeasance to people who were able to illegally obtain unemployment benefits, per The Post.

The Mountain State senator also reportedly brought up work requirements, despite employment already being a key tenet of eligibility for paid-leave, according to several of the sources who spoke with The Post.

In stating his opposition, Manchin has also emphasized the logistical burden that small businesses might face due to federal paid-leave legislation and expressed concerns about the "solvency" of a new social spending program.

"To expand social programs when you have trust funds that aren't solvent, that are going insolvent - I can't explain that, it doesn't make sense to me," the senator said earlier this month. "I want to work with everyone as long as we can start paying for things. That's all. I can't put this burden on my grandchildren."


Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has lobbied Manchin to support paid leave. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

According to Pew Research, the US is a notable outlier when it comes to paid parental leave. Across 41 countries, America is the only that does not mandate paid leave. The US similarly lags behind peers in paid sick leave, with no federal sick leave mandates.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a fellow moderate who has also stymied Democratic leadership over the size of the reconciliation bill, introduced bipartisan family leave legislation in 2019 that would have given the families the option of advancing up to $5,000 of child tax credits to parents in the first year of a child's life or the first year of adopting a child. However, the bill stalled in Congress.

The senator was reportedly one of several female Democratic senators who called Manchin to lobby his support for paid leave, according to a source who spoke to The Post.

Numerous studies have found that paid leave has a positive effect on the economy and workers. Paid leave may lead to higher earnings for women, healthier children, and stronger economic growth, according to a study by the think tank, New America. An analysis from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that paid leave would increase Americans' incomes by $28.5 billion every year.

Among the Democratic caucus, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Patty Murray of Washington have been extremely vocal about the need for paid leave.

Gillibrand, who has championed the issue for years, worked the phones on Friday in an attempt to move Manchin on the issue, telling him she'd "meet him in DC or anywhere in the country" to discuss the issue, as she described to The Post in an interview.

However, the senior senator from West Virginia was not phased by her personal appeal to him.

Murray, who has served in the Senate since 1993 and has also long sought a paid-leave program, was unrelenting in continuing her fight.

"We're not going to let one man tell all the women in this country that they can't have paid leave," she said on Capitol Hill last week.


Revolving Door Provides Window Into Big Oil’s Dirty Secret



Originally published on Transport & Environment

Fossil fuel companies are using their privileged access to EU lawmakers to lobby against the decarbonisation of transport.

Six oil companies and their lobby groups stand accused of dirty tactics designed to slow down, or even block, climate action and the move to a zero-emission transport fleet in the EU. Shell, BP, Repsol and Eni are among the companies caught red handed in 72 revolving door cases.

No one should be surprised that oil and gas majors are hiring former lawmakers and public servants with the express intention of influencing the political process in favour of their own, fossil fuel interests. These are businesses that have used every dirty trick in the book to prop up their profits. But we should be alarmed that the systemic capture of our political system by vested interests is a major obstacle to tackling the climate crisis.

Over the coming months, Transport & Environment will be taking a deeper look at Big Oil’s “dirty” tactics to continue business as usual, publicly declaring their green credentials while working to pump out more polluting oil to fuel our cars. We will also expose how they greenwash and promote false solutions, in order to carve out a space for themselves in a decarbonised future. This first article, which is based on research compiled by Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Action Europe, takes a closer look at the revolving door phenomenon.

Revolving doors are when public servants and elected representatives start working for fossil fuel companies, or when fossil fuel company operatives move to the public sphere. The problem here is that if a former oil company director starts working for a political party or as a public servant at an EU-level, how can we trust that Big Oil is not influencing the outcomes of their political decisions? Revolving door rules are inadequate and regulators turn a blind eye to possible conflicts of interest whereby Big Oil benefits from the know-how and contacts book of insiders.

Lobbying is an important part of the democratic process. It allows lawmakers to hear the views of a broad range of constituencies, but when one industry uses its power and resources to gain undue influence, it can corrupt democratic processes and result in bad laws. Revolving door is one way of gaining undue influence for a specific set of interests that care more for their profits than for people and the planet.

The number of cases is shocking. Since 2015, the year of COP21, TotalEnergies had 15 revolving door cases, 31 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives and spent close to €13 million lobbying the EU. ENI had 10 revolving door cases, 48 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives and spent close to €7 million lobbying the EU. Shell had 10 revolving door cases, 85 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives, and a budget of close to €28 million for lobbying the EU; and BP was linked to 5 revolving door cases, had 47 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives, and allocated close to €18 million for lobbying the EU.

In one revolving-door case, a long-serving diplomat was seconded from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Shell in 2012, as its Government Relations Advisor. After this secondment, he was hired as a senior project advisor on government relations and is now leading advocacy for Shell’s hydrogen business and is a prominent member of Hydrogen Europe, Eurogas, IOGP and others. This makes you wonder how much this has influenced the Dutch Government’s approach to blue hydrogen and natural gas as alternative fuels for the transport sector.

In another case, a former Dutch minister who is now a Total board member, seemed sure of his company’s influence when he claimed at a webinar co-organised by oil and gas company Petronas: “There is no doubt the world is heading towards net zero 2050, and fossils will be part of that.”

For decades Big Oil has lobbied against effective climate action at national, EU, and international levels, blocking or derailing policies aimed at reducing emissions and moving towards a decarbonised transport sector. Through their dirty lobbying tactics, which includes privileged access, huge lobby spending, and revolving doors, Big Oil has maintained its power and can influence key political decisions at an EU and national levels, especially linked to the transport sector and action on climate change.

Big Oil has merely pledged “net zero” climate plans, to conveniently continue business-as-usual, and promote false solutions which involve a variety of risky technologies and deeply flawed schemes, from biofuels and natural gas, to hydrogen with carbon capture and storage (CCS), so-called blue hydrogen. This smokescreen allows for continued emissions, and, deployed at scale, will have significant negative social and environmental impacts. As late as last week, a report showed that Total knew – for 50 years – that their core business would cause catastrophic climate change. They covered up the truth, funded misinformation, and lied to their shareholders and the public.

It derails climate action where it’s most needed, to replace dirty fuels for our cars, trucks, planes, and ships, and to move to a zero emissions transport fleet. The sad truth is that the majority of political institutions embrace the false solutions promoted by Big Oil. This needs to change. We need a functioning firewall between public officials and those companies responsible for driving climate change.




LITTLE TO NOTHING

Climate change: What are the big polluters doing to cut carbon emissions?

By Reality Check team
BBC News

Published
Related T

Just four countries plus the European Union are responsible for most of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most common greenhouse gas responsible for global warming.

All five signed up to the Paris agreement in 2015 to cut emissions to limit global temperature rises.

What steps have they taken since?

China: The world's biggest emitter

  • Says carbon emissions will peak in 2030
  • Aiming for 25% of energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030
  • Promises to be carbon neutral by 2060

Carbon neutrality refers to the balancing of overall carbon emissions with measures to absorb it from the atmosphere such as the planting of trees.

China is the largest producer of CO2, responsible for quarter of all global emissions. And its carbon emissions are still rising, largely because of a reliance on coal.

Last month, President Xi Jinping announced it would stop funding new coal-fired projects overseas.


But at home, coal mines have been ordered to ramp up production to meet surging energy demand, although Beijing has promised to cut back on coal use from 2026.

China has made progress on renewable energy - it now accounts for more than a third of all global solar power and is the world's biggest producer of wind energy.

But the country needs to cut demand for coal by more than 80% by 2060 to meet its climate goals, according to the International Energy Agency.

Climate Action Tracker, meanwhile, says China's policies and actions are "insufficient" - and if every country followed the same path it would lead to a global temperature rise of 3C.

US: The most emissions per person

  • Will cut CO2 by at least 50% of 2005 level by 2030
  • Wants half of new vehicles to be electric by 2030
  • Promises to be carbon neutral by 2050

More than 80% of US energy comes from fossil fuels, although renewable energy sources are on the increase.

President Joe Biden's environmental plan looks to expand green energy further, with a $150bn (£100bn) clean-electricity programme to reward utility companies switching from fossil fuels.

But it has faced opposition from some US lawmakers concerned about the impact on the coal and fracking industry.

CO2 emissions have been dropping over the past decade.

But Climate Action Tracker says US actions and policies are "insufficient", needing "substantial improvement" to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping to a 1.5C increase in global warming.

The European Union: Emissions falling

  • Promises a 55% emissions cut from the 1990 level by 2030
  • Aiming for 40% of energy from renewables by 2030
  • Will be carbon neutral by 2050

The top CO2 emitters in the EU are Germany, Italy and Poland.

And while it has overall emissions targets, EU states have differing financial and technical capabilities.

But all member countries need to agree how they reach the bloc's targets, as the EU negotiates as a single entity when it comes to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop26).

Climate Action Tracker says its policies and actions are "almost sufficient" to keep the global temperature rise to less than 2C, noting emissions have been falling since 2018.

India: Reliant on coal

  • Aiming for a 33-35% reduction in 'emissions intensity' by 2030
  • Promises 40% of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030
  • Has not set a date for carbon neutrality

India's annual CO2 emissions have risen steadily in the past two decades - but it produces the lowest emissions per person among the top five.

India has argued the wealthier, more industrialised nations should bear more of the burden, as they have contributed far more to global warming over time.

And it has a target for "emissions intensity" - CO2 per unit of economic growth - saying this is a fairer way to compare with other countries.

India has also promised a significant increase in energy production from non-fossil fuel sources such as wind, solar and hydro power - and in 2019, this had reached 23%.

And Climate Action Tracker says the country needs to phase out coal power generation before 2040 and boost its target for energy derived from non-fossil fuels.

Russia: Economy driven by oil and gas

  • Will cut emissions by 30% from 1990 levels by 2030
  • Promises to be carbon neutral by 2060

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Russia's economy - and its carbon emissions - shrank anyway.

But Russia is still relying on its extensive forests and swamps to absorb carbon.

Wind, solar and hydro power and other non-fossil fuels make up a small proportion of its total energy mix.

And fossil fuels contribute more than 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in Russia.

Climate Action Tracker says the country's policies and actions are "highly insufficient" to limit global warming to 1.5C.

Reporting and research by Jake Horton, Shruti Menon, Daniele Palumbo and Kai Wang

World will face climate change even after reaching carbon neutrality goals — Rosneft CEO

Igor Sechin stressed that the Earth's climate had never been static

Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin
© Mikhail Metzel/TASS

VERONA, October 28. /TASS/. The world will face climate change even if it reaches carbon neutrality goals by 2050, Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin during the Eurasian Economic Forum.

"The Earth's climate has never been static, and even after reaching the carbon-neutral goals by 2050, humanity will still face climate changes," he said.

At the same time, he noted that energy transition is possible only if the stability of energy supplies and the development of new technologies are maintained. "The development of new materials is no longer an energy issue, but a much more serious issue of changing the structure of the economy. Despite the variety of plans to reach carbon neutrality, the energy transition will remain a pipe dream without developing new technologies and materials. Even in the long term renewable energy will not be able to completely replace traditional energy resources," he said.

Supporters of complete refusal to invest in the oil and gas sector ignore the risks of market imbalance, Sechin added. "This year has clearly shown that wrong decisions in the field of climate policy can lead to serious negative consequences for the entire global economy and society," he said.

Sechin believes that the climate agenda puts pressure on oil and gas prices, and not the OPEC+ policy. "Pressure from climate activists stops the implementation of joint projects with international companies, which forces majors to cut investments in oil and gas production, redirecting funds to renewable energy. It is the climate agenda that is now putting pressure on the global oil and gas market," he said.

Meanwhile, the gas crisis may cause additional demand for oil in the amount of 1 mln barrels per day, which could further increase oil prices, he noted. "According to Citi and Goldman Sachs, ultra-high prices for natural gas could create additional demand for oil in the amount of up to 1 mln barrels per day, which will increase imbalance similar to gas, and will further increase oil prices," Sechin explained.

According to Rosneft CEO, a variety of factors caused the gas crisis in Europe, but Russia is only helping resolve it. "The gas crisis did not occur for any one reason, but because of a variety of factors that had a simultaneous impact. Russia, for its part, helps resolve the crisis as much as possible, ensuring the stability of gas supplies to Europe. At the same time, our country always fully complies with all its contractual obligations," he said.

TRANSFORMING SOCIETY
Gen Z activists fuel Climate Express to Glasgow

Vum AFP|Update: 01.11.2021

Passengers chat in a special Climate Summit train bound for the COP26 UN climate meet in Glasgow / © ANP/AFP/File

One car was themed 'climate reality,' another 'transforming society' and a third 'stop talking and start doing' -- welcome to the Glasgow-bound Rail to the COP.

With more than 400 young climate warriors on board, many in their mid-to-late teens, the 10-hour trip from Amsterdam with changeovers in Brussels and London was shot through with camaraderie, determination and anger.

One thing these young activists did not bring on board was the illusion that the 13-day UN summit starting Sunday would by itself beat back what they called the existential threat of global warming.


"Politicians won't achieve the Paris Agreement goals, they won't keep the temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius," said Johnny Dabrowski, an 18-year old high school senior from Warsaw, referring to the cornerstone target in the 2015 treaty signed by nearly every country on the planet.

But rather than simply joining the Fridays for Future student strikes launched by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, Dabrowski has put climate action at the centre of plans for his own future.

He has enrolled to become an environmental engineer to compensate for the failure of the world's major economies to slash greenhouse gases.

"We have to take carbon out of the atmosphere, it's simply a fact," he said with a poise beyond his years.

Elin Wilhelmsson has already dedicated her career to the environment.

Describing herself a Nature buff from the time she could walk, the 24-year-old is today a waste management engineer in the Swedish city of Aneby.

"I want what I do professionally to matter," she said, peering over the edge of a snug-fitting face mask.

- 'Panicky' -


Wilhelmsson was leading a small delegation of Swedish scouts, some with jackets adorned with merit badges and all wearing the signature striped scarf.

She has a coveted "observer" status at the UN negotiations and she said she would play a watchdog role as best she can.

The Rail to the COP journey, spearheaded by the non-profit Youth for Sustainable Travel, was also meant to send a message -- highlighting the low-carbon virtues of train travel.

At the station in Brussels, Eurostar Director General Jacques Dumas said that, on average, taking the train emits ten times less CO2 than flying.

Vinne Luyt, a 22-year old volunteer with Oxfam and a student in international relations from Ghent, Belgium, wanted to go to the COP26 talks in Glasgow in support of people from the Global South who could not attend for lack of a vaccine.

"A lot of young people would have come," said Luyt, who had become friends online with three activists in Indonesia, India and Colombia.

"They are getting panicky about the impact of climate change on their daily lives," he said.

 NOT THIS YEARS CLASS FOR HOGWARTS

Rail passengers leave the special Climate Summit train in London to take a second train to Glasgow for the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference
/ © ANP/AFP/File

Just over one degree of warming compared to preindustrial levels has been enough to unleash a deadly cascade of storms, wildfires and flooding, with far worse on the horizon, scientists say.

The more than 20 cars on the climate express were also crawling with journalists, including those from a new generation of news media run by young people for young people.

-It's all about networking -

Lucas Wicky and Florian Thomas, both in their early 20s, recorded testimonials of activists for Brut, a video-only platform that lives on, and through, social media.

"We do storytelling for young people," explained Thomas.

Some videos posted by Brut, which has editions in half-a-dozen countries, have scored more than 10 million views.

About half-way on the leg from London to Glasgow, the voice of a crew member from Avanti West Coast Trains pierced the bustle of animated conversation.

"My name is Fatin Abdalla, and I am so excited to be on this train," she said over the speakers.

Abdalla, originally from Sudan, it turned out, had gone to landmark Paris climate talks in 2018 as a youth delegate for an NGO, and the experience left a huge impression.

While working in Avanti's sustainability department, she is completing a PhD in mechanical engineering to develop ways to store heat generated by solar panels that can be used in developing countries -- like her own -- where most people don't have electricity.

For many on board, the trip to Paris was more to meet other young activists than diving into the details of the highly technical UN talk.

"It's all about networking," said one young woman to a new-found friend.

"Yes I've had so many good conversations," the other agreed

Sea level is already guaranteed to rise by 5 feet, climate scientist says


·Senior Editor

Based on the amount of greenhouse gases humans have already added to the Earth’s atmosphere, the world is guaranteed to experience approximately 5 feet of sea level rise in the coming decades, climate scientist Benjamin Strauss told “The Climate Crisis Podcast.” 

“It’s in that range, you know, 5 feet plus or minus. And that’s because we’ve already warmed the planet by around 2 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.1 Celsius,” Strauss, the president and CEO of Climate Central, a nonprofit that tries to educate policymakers and the public about the threats posed by climate change, told Yahoo News. “Think of it this way: If I dumped a truckload of ice in the middle of Phoenix, we’d all know it’s going to melt. But it takes time to melt. And the same thing is true for the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and glaciers around the world. We turned up the thermostat. We’ve already heated the planet by a couple degrees, but they’ve only begun to respond by melting. And that’s why we have all this extra sea level in the pipeline and it’s, it’s enough, I’m afraid to say, it’s hard to imagine the long-term future of South Florida, let’s say, right, with the sea level that’s already in the pipeline.”

A woman stands on top of a rock holding a fish her husband just caught off Bikeman islet, located off South Tarawa in the central Pacific island nation of Kiribati.
A woman stands off Bikeman islet in the Pacific island nation of Kiribati in 2013. (David Gray/Reuters)

Strauss, who has testified before Congress on the number of American houses that will be threatened due to sea level rise caused by climate change, noted that current estimates are that seas will rise by 2 to 3 feet by the end of the century and will continue rising in the decades that follow. Yet the fact that roughly 5 feet of sea level rise has already been baked in to the planet’s future is, for Strauss, even more incentive for the world to come together to prevent that figure from creeping even higher. 

“I think we can help ourselves a lot by slowing down these changes,” he said. 

G20 leaders talk up climate action but avoid real commitments, casting a shadow over crucial Glasgow talks

October 31, 2021 

The G20 summit in Rome concluded over the weekend with a disappointing outcome for Earth’s climate.

Leaders of the world’s wealthiest countries, including Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, failed to reach a commitment to phase out fossil fuels. And the meeting’s final communique did not include a commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

G20 leaders made significant strides to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, especially on global vaccine targets. They also struck an agreement that will mean profits of large multinational companies pay more tax.

But breakthrough leadership on climate change was missing. This outcome does not bode well for the Glasgow talks – the world’s last hope for keeping the 1.5℃ global warming limit within reach.

G20 leaders, including Australia’s Scott Morrison and the UK’s Boris Johnson, failed to reach a commitment to phase out fossil fuels. AP

No timeline for coal exit


The G20 meeting was seen as a crucial precursor to the COP26 negotiations. But while world leaders agreed substantial action was needed to stay within 1.5℃ of global warming, they made few real commitments to meeting that target.

Going into the G20, Morrison was under pressure, after US President Joe Biden on Saturday described Australia’s handling of the cancelled French submarine deal as “clumsy”. And in the months leading to the talks, both the US and United Kingdom had called on Australia to up its climate ambition.

Days before leaving to attend the summit, Morrison struck a deal with the Nationals for Australia to adopt a target of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Rome talks, however, failed to set a concrete 2050 target for all G20 nations – instead underlining the importance of reaching the target by or around the middle of the century. This phrasing meets the positions of China and Saudi Arabia, which don’t plan to reach net zero until 2060.

Read more: Scott Morrison attends pivotal global climate talks today, bringing a weak plan that leaves Australia exposed

China has pledged to reach net-zero emissions until 2060. Shutterstock

Morrison’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 was welcomed by some, and scrutinised by others, particularly for lack of detail.

UK Climate Change Committee chair John Gummer said international pressure “squeezed out” a net-zero pledge from Morrison, and the plan lacked the action necessary to meet the target.

Major global news outlets have labelled Morrison’s plan “hollow” and “hard to believe”. CNN called Australia “the rich world’s weakest link at COP26”.

In his closing statement at the G20, Morrison talked up the nation’s record on emissions reduction and sought to justify his government’s “technology not taxes” approach to climate action.

He promoted the case for emerging technologies, saying many existed now. He conceded some technologies were not yet invented, but likened the challenge to development of the COVID-19 vaccine which “didn’t exist two years ago”.

Morrison’s focus on technology appeared to resonate. G20 leaders agreed to “cooperate on the deployment and dissemination of zero or low carbon emission and renewable technologies, including sustainable bioenergy, to enable a transition towards low-emission power systems”.

Read more: If all 2030 climate targets are met, the planet will heat by 2.7℃ this century. That's not OK

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres had called on G20 leaders to strike a deal on coal, saying wealthy countries should phase out coal-fired power by 2030 while developing nations should do so by 2040.

But he was left disappointed. The G20’s final communique failed to put a timeline on the phase-out, instead saying it should be done “as soon as possible”.

Unsurprisingly, Australia pushed back on coal phase-outs, alongside India and China.

However, small steps towards phasing out coal were achieved. Leaders accepted the G7 position to end international public finance for “new unabated coal power generation abroad by the end of 2021”. But this commitment does not address existing coal plants, and it means coal can still be burned with carbon capture and storage technology.




Now to COP26


Australia’s overall contribution to the G20 was low-key. In a defiant statement about climate policy issued last week, Morrison declared the nation “won’t be lectured by others who do not understand Australia”. On this, Morrison may regard the G20 as a success, for it required few concessions to Australia’s position on climate.

Morrison enjoyed some positive moments at the G20, including a bilateral meeting with Indonesian President Joko Widodo. This resulted in a joint statement on cooperation on the green economy and energy transition – an important move that advances the bilateral relationship while recognising the significance of Indonesia’s forthcoming G20 presidency.

But that high note was overshadowed when French President Emmanuel Macron claimed Morrison lied to him about cancelling the major French submarine contract.

The comments deepen the rift between Australia and France. Heading into COP26, this could cause Australia issues with coalitions such as the G7, the OECD and the European Union, where France is a major player.

Of course, there’s still room for diplomatic pressure and progress on climate action in Glasgow.

There, attention will turn towards national pledges for emissions reduction by 2030 and the action required to meet them. Australia’s 2030 target lags almost all developed countries, and we are one of very few rich nations not to ramp up its 2030 target since the Paris Agreement six years ago.

Macron has declared “2030 is the new 2050”. On that score, Australia is likely to feel the heat.

Read more: Glasgow COP26: climate finance pledges from rich nations are inadequate and time is running out

Authors
Caitlin Byrne
Director, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University
Disclosure statement
Caitlin Byrne receives funding from the Australia Indonesia Institute.
Susan Harris Rimmer
Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith University
Disclosure statement
Susan Harris Rimmer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Partners


G20 disappoints on key climate target as eyes turn to Glasgow

The New Arab Staff & Agencies
31 October, 2021
The G20 major economies committed on Sunday to the key goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but some disappointed leaders warned more was needed to make a success of UN climate talks beginning in Glasgow.


The G20 nations between them emit nearly 80 percent of carbon emissions (Getty)

The G20 major economies committed on Sunday to the key goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but some disappointed leaders warned more was needed to make a success of UN climate talks beginning in Glasgow.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the host of the COP26 summit that opened on Sunday, said the pledge from world leaders after two days of talks in Rome was "not enough", and warned of the dire consequences for the planet.

"If Glasgow fails, the whole thing fails," he told reporters, saying the G20 commitments were "drops in a rapidly warming ocean".

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he left Rome "with my hopes unfulfilled - but at least they are not buried".

The G20 nations between them emit nearly 80 percent of carbon emissions, and a firm commitment on action was viewed as vital for the success of the UN's COP26.

US President Joe Biden said the summit made "tangible" progress on many issues but said he found it "disappointing" that Russia and China, whose leaders attended only via videolink, did not offer stronger climate pledges.

He vowed to "continue to focus on what China is not doing, what Russia is not doing, and what Saudi Arabia is not doing."

Meaningful actions

In a final communique, the G20 reaffirmed its support for the goals in the landmark 2015 Paris climate accords, to keep "the global average temperature increase well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels".

They said this would require "meaningful and effective actions and commitment by all countries, taking into account different approaches", while they also promised measures against coal use.

But experts say meeting the 1.5 degree target means slashing global emissions nearly in half by 2030 and to "net-zero" by 2050 - and the G20 set no firm date, speaking only of reaching the goal of net zero "by or around mid century".

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, who hosted the G20 talks, said he was "proud of these results, but we must remember that it's only the start".

Eyes now turn to Glasgow, where more than 120 heads of state and government, including Biden, India's Narendra Modi and Australia's Scott Morrison, were heading from Rome.

Lacking ambition

The G20 leaders did agree to end funding for new unabated coal plants abroad -- those whose emissions have not gone through any filtering process -- by the end of 2021.

But environmental campaign group Greenpeace slammed the final statement as "weak, lacking both ambition and vision", saying G20 leaders "failed to meet the moment".

"If the G20 was a dress rehearsal for COP26, then world leaders fluffed their lines," said Executive Director Jennifer Morgan.

Friederike Roder, senior director at anti-poverty group Global Citizen, told AFP the summit had produced "half-measures rather than concrete actions".

European leaders pointed out that given the fundamental divisions among the world's most advanced nations, a joint commitment to what was the most ambitious Paris goal was a step forward.

"I hear all the very alarmed talk on these subjects. I'm myself worried and we are fully mobilised," said French President Emmanuel Macron.

"But I would like us to take a step back and look at the situation where we were four years ago", when former US President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the treaty.

Draghi said that the needle had moved markedly even in the past few days, including by China -- by far the world's biggest carbon polluter.

Beijing plans to make its economy carbon neutral before 2060, but has resisted pressure to offer nearer-term goals.

'Dream big'


Earlier on Sunday, Draghi, Britain's Prince Charles and Pope Francis had all called on leaders to think big.

Calling climate change "the defining challenge of our times", Draghi warned: "Either we act now... or we delay acting, pay a much higher price later, and risk failing."

Pope Francis, who is outspoken on the issue and received several G20 leaders at the Vatican this weekend, said: "This is a moment to dream big, to rethink our priorities... The time to act, and to act together, is now!"