Australian Museum Launches First In-Depth Scientific Expedition On Norfolk Island

Monday, 24 October 2022
Press Release: Australian Museum

Norfolk Island, 1700 km north-east of Sydney, boasts a diverse and abundant array of birds, insects, reptiles and marine life, with many unique to the island. Over the next two years, the Australian Museum (AM) will conduct one of the most comprehensive environmental surveys of Norfolk Island.

Working in collaboration with the local community, Parks Australia and scientists from the Australian Institute of Botanical Science and Auckland War Memorial Museum, the goal of the surveys is to develop a more accurate picture of the state of the endemic flora and fauna, as well as increase understanding of pre-European habitation of Norfolk Island through an archaeological dig.

Director and CEO, Australian Museum, Kim McKay AO, said Norfolk Island has a diverse environment and notable historic sites offering a unique heritage seldom found elsewhere within Australia and around the world.

“For nearly two centuries, the Australian Museum has conducted expeditions to document, collect and examine our land and fauna which has led to great advances in our geographic knowledge,” McKay said.

“With the depth and breadth of our scientific knowledge, backed by our valuable collections, we are uniquely placed to help inform future management of these areas and contribute to our understanding of the origins of Norfolk Island and how its ecosystems function within the greater global environmental picture,” McKay explained.

The first phase of the AM’s Norfolk Island expedition begins today, Monday24 October, with a combined team of more than 20 experts who will be seeking to answer a number of scientific questions including whether there are any undescribed species on the island, and if the elusive Gould’s Wattled Bat, endemic to the Island, continues to call Norfolk Island home. Archaeologists will also be researching the pre-European history of the island, particularly the occupation of the island by Polynesians some 150 years before European settlement.

According to the AM’s Chief Scientist and Director of the Australian Museum Research Institute, Professor Kris Helgen, the Norfolk Island community will be essential to helping the scientists in their expeditions.

“Our scientists are recognised internationally as experts in their fields, but local collaboration and consultation is essential in both the planning and research phases of scientific expeditions. On one previous expedition to the Solomon Islands, our scientists only managed to learn about a rare species of rat because of a tip off by residents. Local voices will be crucial in painting a full picture of Norfolk’s biodiversity,” Professor Helgen said.

"In order to conserve a species, we must know it’s there. Conservation is at the heart of our expeditions and the work we do throughout the Australian Museum Research Institute. The AM’s Lord Howe Island surveys are one such example. The scientists’ findings contributed to improving the breeding program for the phasmid (stick insect) long thought to be extinct and provided important scientific evidence to support the eradication of invasive black rats from the island,” Helgen added.

Chief Scientist at the Australian Institute of Botanical Science (Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust), Professor Brett Summerell, said four scientists based at the Institute’s National Herbarium of New South Wales will conduct botanical surveys to help fill crucial knowledge gaps of Norfolk Island’s unique flora.

“Scientists from the Australian Institute of Botanical Science will be collecting plant material in areas with few collections in herbaria, focussing on weeds and non-threatened flora that has flowers or fruit, to help advance fundamental knowledge of Norfolk Island’s flora and drive effective conservation solutions,” said Professor Summerell.

Head of Natural Sciences at Auckland Museum, Dr Thomas Trnski, said the Auckland Museum is supporting two scientists to complement the terrestrial survey team: a herpetologist and non-vascular botanist.

“There are ancient biological connection between Norfolk Island and mainland Aotearoa New Zealand, which are connected by the submerged continent of Zealandia. Examining in detail the population and genetic connections of species between Norfolk Island and Aotearoa will establish a solid baseline to detect change over time,” Dr Trnski said.

In addition to the scientific surveys, the AM will also be engaging the local community through education activities with the Norfolk Island Central School and a range of programs and events to learn about the expedition.

The AM’s team of scientists depart for phase one of the Norfolk Island expedition on Friday 21 October 2022 and return to Sydney on Monday 31 October 2022. In 2023, a team of marine biologists plan to undertake research of the waters around the island.

© Scoop Media

Elon Musk reportedly wants to fire most Twitter employees, but he told investors 5 months ago he wanted to grow the workforce to 11,000. Here's why experts think he changed his mind.

Samantha Delouya

Maja Hitij/Getty Images

Elon Musk's plans for Twitter may have drastically changed since he agreed to the $44 billion purchase in April.

Musk reportedly shared plans to grow Twitter's headcount by 3,600 in May. Now, he reportedly wants to slash it by 75%.

Some analysts predict that the slowing advertising market may be partially to blame for the change.

Elon Musk's plans for running Twitter seem to be drastically different than what he proposed when he initially agreed to purchase the company in April.

In the early days after the agreement, Musk reportedly pitched an ambitious proposal for Twitter to investors that directly contradicts a recent report about his plan for mass firings.

According to a pitch deck viewed by the New York Times in May, Musk planned to grow Twitter's staff from 7,500 to 11,072 by 2025.

Less than 6 months later, Musk wants to slash Twitter's workforce by nearly 75% to a significantly scaled-down staff of 2,000, The Washington Post reports.

Neither Twitter nor Musk immediately responded to Insider's request for comment.

Ali Mogharabi, an analyst who covers Twitter for Morningstar, said he hadn't seen a significant change in Twitter's business to justify such a drastic change in headcount plans by Musk. However, external factors could be to blame.

"A lot has changed outside the business since Musk first spoke with Twitter employees. The uncertainty around the macro environment has certainly increased," Mogharabi said, referring to the slowdown in the overall economy.

He said that Twitter, which makes most of its money from advertising, could see revenue decline as advertisers get spooked by a potential recession.

While Musk's pitch deck from May opened the possibility for layoffs in 2023, there was no indication that he might fire more than 5,000 workers, based on the Times' report.

Mogharabi estimates that Twitter's potential revenue slowdown, combined with the possibility that investors helping to finance Musk's takeover of Twitter might be "demanding for Musk to make this business a cash cow," could account for his reported about-face.

Mark Shmulik, a Twitter analyst at Bernstein, thinks cutting such a large number of workers at Twitter might hurt the company's bottom line, not help it.

"I've always taken this view that you kind of break out these companies into three distinct categories: fat, muscle, and bone. Fat is the stuff like the discretionary projects, muscle is probably revenue generating, but subscale, and the bone is the critical stuff to keep the lights on. If you really are cutting 75% of Twitter's workforce, certainly you're cutting all that fat, but you're cutting deep into some of the muscle too," Shmulik said.

"I guess if the deal closes and if he goes in that direction, we'll certainly see just how lean some of these ad companies can actually run," he added.

Twitter says the company has no plans for layoffs, following claims that Elon Musk planned to cut headcount by 75%

Beatrice Nolan
Oct 21, 2022

Twitter's general counsel emailed staff on Thursday, per a report. 

Chesnot/Getty Images

Twitter has confirmed the company has no plans in place for company-wide layoffs.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Elon Musk planned to cut Twitter's headcount by nearly 75%.

The reported cuts would have slashed Twitter's 7,500-person workforce to around 2,000, per The Post.

Twitter says the company had no plans in place for company-wide layoffs after The Washington Post reported that Elon Musk planned to cut headcount by nearly 75%.

Reuters first reported the news.

Sean Edgett, Twitter's general counsel, emailed Twitter's staff on Thursday telling them the company did not plan for layoffs, a source who viewed the email told Reuters.

A representative for Twitter confirmed to Insider the company was not planning layoffs.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Elon Musk told prospective investors he would lay off almost 75% of Twitter's workforce. The reported job cuts would have slashed Twitter's 7,500-person workforce down to a staff of around 2,000, per The Post.

The news outlet reported that some job cuts were planned regardless of Musk's takeover. It cited corporate documents and interviews with people familiar with the plans in its report.

After months of litigation, Musk's deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion is expected to close by next Friday.

Some employees have expressed their unease about the deal on social media. Earlier this month, Rumman Chowdhury, the director of Twitter's ML Ethics, Transparency, and Accountability team, tweeted: "Living the plot of succession is fucking exhausting."

Cop 27: Uganda-Tanzania oil pipeline sparks climate row

Published

Image caption,

A sign in Chongoleani warns against trespassing on land set aside for the oil pipeline project

By Dickens Olewe

BBC News

Uganda and Tanzania are set to begin work on a massive crude oil pipeline a year after the International Energy Agency warned that the world risked not meeting its climate goals if new fossil fuel projects were not stopped. The two East African countries say their priority is economic development.

Juma Hamisi, not his real name, keeps his distance, careful not to trespass, as he points to mounds of rubble spread across an open field. They are signs that a thriving community once lived here in a mix of concrete and grass-thatched mud houses.

At this time of year, the surrounding fertile land would normally be covered with a variety of sprouting crops - enough to feed the village, along with a surplus to sell at local markets. But it too lies bare.

"We used to be the source of cassava and lemons, now there's scarcity. We can't even harvest the coconuts you see over there because it's not our land any more," Mr Hamisi says.

Several signs bearing the name Tanzania Petroleum Development Cooperation, a state agency, now claim ownership of the area where villagers once lived, farmed and played.

Some of the inhabitants of the Chongoleani peninsula, some 18km (11 miles) north of Tanzania's port city of Tanga, sold their land for compensation two years ago, after the government signed a deal to construct a pipeline to transport crude oil from the shores of Lake Albert in western Uganda.

Eighty percent of the 1,440km- (895 mile) pipeline, whose construction will begin in a few months, will be in Tanzania including a terminal-storage facility in Chongoleani.

French energy giant Total Energies and Chinese energy firm CNOOC International also have a stake in the $5bn (£4bn) venture.

Because of the waxy nature of Lake Albert's crude oil, it will be transported through a heated pipeline - the longest in the world. But only a third of the reserves of 6.5 billion barrels, first discovered in 2006, is deemed commercially viable.

Despite the projected economic benefits, the timing of the project has divided opinion in Uganda and beyond.

In September, the European Union waded into the controversy surrounding the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (Eacop), and called for it to be halted, citing human rights abuses and concern for the environment and the climate.

The intervention was dismissed by the Ugandan and Tanzanian governments which see the pipeline as vital to turbo-charge their economies.

"They are insufferable, so shallow, so egocentric, so wrong," Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni said of the EU lawmakers.

His frustration is shared by some advocates of Africa's economic development who argue that the continent has the right to use its fossil fuel riches to develop, just like rich nations have done for hundreds of years.

They point out that Africa has only emitted 3% of climate-warming gases compared to 17% from EU countries.

Crucially, 92% of Uganda's energy already comes from renewable sources. In Tanzania, it is about 84%. Whereas for the EU it is 22%, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

"It's hypocrisy," Elison Karuhanga, a member of Uganda's chamber of mines and petroleum, says of the EU's comments about the pipeline.

"Unlike wealthy nations which will remain wealthy even when their oil and gas revenue is removed, we cannot afford to gamble the future of Ugandan generations on hypotheticals," Mr Karuhanga says.

The first oil is expected to be tapped in three years with at least 230,000 barrels pumped out every day at its peak - projected to earn Uganda between $1.5bn-$3.5bn a year, 30-75% of its annual tax revenue. Tanzania will reportedly get at least $12 a barrel, close to $1bn a year.

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

Protests denouncing the EU's stance on Eacop have been held in Uganda

Despite the estimated windfall, campaign group Stop Eacop says the pipeline will produce 34 million tonnes of harmful carbon emissions each year. It passes near Murchison Falls National Park, an area rich in biodiversity, as well as farmlands.

TotalEnergies, which has a 62% stake in Eacop, told the BBC that the project will have "one of the company's lowest carbon dioxide emission levels".

"The pipeline route was designed to minimise its impact on the landscape and biodiversity" and "will significantly improve living conditions locally," the French oil giant said.

However, Ugandan climate activist Brian says Eacop would only turn Uganda into a "petrol station" for Europe and China and says the windfall from the project will only benefit the country's elite. We are not giving Brian's full name for security reasons.

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

Other Ugandans have called for the pipeline to be stopped

Despite threats of arrest and harassment faced by Eacop opponents, Brian continues to campaign for the country to switch to green energy as it committed to by signing the Paris Climate agreement in 2015 - the global plan to prevent temperatures rising beyond 1.5C compared to pre-industrial levels.

"You only use the oil and gas that's already developed. The moment you start developing new ones today, and tomorrow, and a month later and years from now, you're delaying the process of transition, and that will cause a tipping-point for the climate," Brian says.

Tony Tiyou, the head of the company Renewables in Africa, disagrees with green energy purists.

"I may be a renewable advocate, but I'm also a practical guy," he says.

"I know we're still going to need some fossil fuel because at the moment people need power in Africa and if they don't have power, it will be a little bit difficult to lift people out of poverty," Mr Tiyou says.

"Solar and wind could be intermittent. You don't have solar at night, for example, and wind doesn't always blow when you need it. But people talk about an energy mix - a combination of different sources."

We have asked for comment from the Tanzania and Uganda governments.

• Climate Question podcast: What should Africa do with its fossil fuel reserves?

But despite the urgency for energy transition as set out in the Paris agreement, global investments in fossil fuels still outpace those in renewables.

"Part of the reason is the fact that you need to look at who's going to benefit from the project, because you can't really export renewable at this stage, you most of the time, use it locally. You can export oil, and guess who's going to benefit from that?" Mr Tiyou says, referring to Western countries.

It's a point that Faten Agaad, senior adviser on Climate Diplomacy and Geopolitics for the African Climate Foundation, agrees with.

"African countries are not receiving financing required for the green transition. That's why we see countries turning to fossil fuels as a way to generate incomes. I mean as we speak, the financing of fossil fuels is three times higher than for green energy, that's $30bn to $9bn for renewables."

She also accuses the EU of hypocrisy.

Although Eacop plans to construct a refinery in Uganda for domestic consumption, its crude oil will mainly be for export, especially for Europe as a result of the ripple-effects of the war in Ukraine.

While Uganda hopes to benefit from its oil well into the future, this may not prove to be the case.

"What we're seeing is that Europe is working towards a transition, and in fact, not just in Europe. Even in Asia. China is currently the largest in terms of solar capacity, we also see other large economies like Indonesia also transitioning. So the risk for African countries is in 20, 30, 40 years they'll find themselves with assets that are not a good return on investment," Ms Aggad says.

How to balance economic development as well as fight climate change will dominate discussions at next month's Cop 27 conference in Egypt.

Activists from developing countries have been putting pressure on rich nations to honour their commitment at Cop 26 last year for urgent funding for climate adaptation and mitigation projects, as well as to compensate them for the loss and damage that they have wrought on the planet while building their own economies.

Image caption,

Some Chongoleani residents used their compensation to build new houses which remain unfinished

Back in Chongoleani, several unfinished concrete houses dot an area near where villagers who sold their land were relocated. They complain that the compensation given was not enough. Some are said to have invested their money in new businesses which have since failed.

Others said they had taken up fishing after farming became untenable.

Meanwhile, newcomers from other parts of the country continue to arrive in the area hoping to benefit from the project.

Mr Hamisi, like many in the community, hopes that the oil pipeline project will help replace his lost farming income, and bring prosperity to the village.

Additional reporting by the BBC's Aboubakar Famau in Tanzania

OUR BURNING PLANET

CLIMATE CRISIS

‘Drill, baby, drill; gas, baby, gas’: African energy ministers solidify pro-fossil fuel position ahead of COP27

From left: Ghana's Minister of Resources and Energy, Matthew Opoku Prempeh, Equatorial Guinea Minister of Mines and Hydrocarbons Gabriel Mbaga Obiang, Executive Chairman of the African Energy Chamber Lima NJ Ayuk, Senegal Minister of Petroleum and Energies Sophie Gladima, founder and CEO of Egypt Oil & Gas Mohamed Fouad and Minister of Petroleum of Niger Mahamane Sani Mahamadou. (Photo: Ethan van Diemen)

By Ethan van Diemen
23 Oct 2022 

At the closing event of Africa Energy Week, NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman of the African Energy Chamber summarised the positions of the four African energy ministers ahead of UN climate negotiations: ‘Drill, baby, drill; gas, baby, gas.’ His sentiments were echoed by a number of other African energy ministers during the conference.

“From Cape to Cairo: A Common African Voice for COP27” was its title. It was the closing event of African Energy Week, held in Cape Town between 18 and 21 October 2022 just a few weeks before climate negotiations are to be held in Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt. One by one, ministers of energy and petroleum resources explicitly – and sometimes humorously – shared NJ Ayuk’s sentiments.

Ayuk was joined on stage by Gabriel Mbaga Obiang Lima, Minister of Mines and Hydrocarbons in Equatorial Guinea; Sophie Gladima, Senegal’s Minister of Petroleum and Energies, Mahamane Sani Mahamadou, Minister of Petroleum of Niger and Matthew Opoku Prempeh, the Ghanaian Minister for Energy. On the schedule but missing was their South African counterpart, Gwede Mantashe, as well as his Nambian and Nigerian counterparts.

Together, this grouping of African ministers sought to answer questions such as: how can an African Just Transition be compatible with a global energy transition?; What does a victory in Egypt look like for Africa?; Will Africa be able to speak with one voice at COP27?

Assuming the various ministers represent Africa’s voice and based on their statements, the answer to the final question is a resounding yes.

Ahead of the discussion, Tarek El Molla, the Egyptian Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, shared some prerecorded remarks via video link.

In a speech entirely devoid of any mention of Africa’s rich renewable resource endowment, El Molla said “We are a few weeks away from COP27 that Egypt is hosting on behalf of the African continent, carrying and expressing the voices of the African countries. Although the African continent is not responsible for the climate change crisis, it is facing its most negative impacts.

He continued that “This year, COP27 represents an opportunity to articulate Africa’s priorities for reducing emissions … transformative adaptation, accessing appropriate funding, and addressing climate repercussions. We certainly cannot ignore the fact that oil and gas resources still represent an essential source of energy globally, and will remain part of the global energy mix over the long term.

“Our goal is to provide oil and gas sources in ways that are more responsible, environmentally friendly and with reduced impacts on the climate, including through CCUS [carbon capture use and storage], methane emissions reduction and carbon circular economy … as environmental concerns are now more prominent than ever, it is crucial to highlight the global role in providing the access to funding for gas projects, deployment of technologies and capacity building that are becoming increasingly necessary to provide these oil and gas resources in ways that are more responsible with reduced impacts on the climate.”

The Egyptian minister continued that “I’m very optimistic about the Egyptian and African collaborative efforts to develop an initiative for energy access and a just transition in Africa. The African initiative will consider optimum monetisation of the continent’s energy resources – especially natural gas – to support the economic growth and sustainable development of African nations to fulfil the aspirations and welfare of the local societies.”

His countryman Mohamed Fouad, Founder and CEO of Egypt Oil & Gas, moderated the panel discussion and sought to set out the context.

“The reality as I frame today’s panel, is that my intention is to create the platform of the blueprint of success. Africa’s historical and current carbon emissions share is below 3% of global emissions and the burden of climate change on economies and livelihoods across the entire continent is disproportionately high.

“A complete climate injustice,” said Fouad.

“Africa’s high vulnerability to climate change and a low readiness for its impact is threatening to derail development goals and impose further economic costs and social disruption. True climate justice suggests that Africa is owed 10 times as much as the global climate finance that it received in the recent years… The principle of a just energy transition in Africa must consider past emissions and how these [have] shaped emissions trajectories. Africa contributed little to the buildup of historical emissions and share and therefore should not be denied ‘carbon space’ to develop its economies.”

Professor Mark New, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Climate Change and Director of the African Climate and Development Initiative at the University of Cape Town told Our Burning Planet that the “carbon space” is “not available; it is pie in the sky.”

He explained that any “carbon space” for Africa will “push emissions above the cap needed for 1.5 or 2°C of global warming, leading to extra warming, which will then hit African countries hardest, as these are the most vulnerable. It is a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.”

Thresholds of 1.5°C and 2°C define “dangerous climate change.” The scientific consensus is resolute that further increases in global warming will result in further increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme events across the globe such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, tropical cyclones and in some regions, the frequency and intensity of drought.

DATA 
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

Despite this, when asked what it could mean for Africa to have a more unified voice as it relates to matters of energy, Equatorial Guinea’s Obiang Lima said “I promise not to say [transition] any more… [this is] the last time I’m going to say energy transition. I’m not gonna say that any more. Anything regarding energy security, that’s really our priority. That’s what we will be talking… only energy security. Once we achieve the energy security… [then] we start talking about the transition or the transformation or any other things.

I very strongly advocate for… when you say China (can use their fossil fuels) it’s okay, when you say America (can use their fossil fuels) it’s okay… only when you say Africa, it’s wrong. China’s resources for China, American resources for America… it has to be the same thing – African resources for Africa.”



Our Burning Planet previously reported that energy ministers prevaricated on the definition of “energy transition”, saying that instead of meaning moving from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon economy, in Africa it should mean “to transit from no energy to energy, to fill the energy access gap” – seemingly inferring that the two priorities were mutually exclusive.

Obiang Lima’s Sengalese counterpart, Sophie Gladima, in response to a question about what role “developing countries in Africa should play to maximise oil and gas production for economic growth and energy security”, said in French that “the main issue that we all agree on is funding. Funding has been cut, and even though we have a gas-to-power strategy, the funding continues to be cut. This planet has given us natural resources and we have to exploit them. But we need to exploit them in a responsible manner and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes others have done in the past. Let us use our oil and gas and have the chance to grow. Ministers of energy must go and convince the ministers of environment. We need to decide together and find a way that is for the good of Africa.”

Prempeh, her Ghanaian counterpart, to an alternating mixture of laughter and applause said “I do not want to talk in terms of victory, but in terms of responsibility and rights. I will be an irresponsible leader to sell my country on the altar of energy transition without talking about the significance of energy security or energy access or without talking about energy affordability. The ministers of energy have been meeting, building and developing a consensus. We should not allow ourselves to be divided between environment and development.”

He went on to decry what he considered a double standard. Speaking about Africa being locked out of access to international markets if they develop their fossil fuel resources, he said “Russia earns more from their mineral resources, even as we speak … I’ve never heard anybody say we won’t buy from Russia; the worst I’ve heard is that they will cap the price … injustice will continue to exist about exploitation and about appropriate remuneration and price for a natural resource, for the whole of Africa … all the gas and oil we take, over 80% ends up in Europe, or China, or in India. It is not even used in the Africa continent.”



“So it looks like some people have sat in a room and said ‘these people, the only thing that is good for us … is to produce for us so that we can grow big, and they can grow lean’. No. The African child has got a right to develop, to develop to its full talent capability. And the only way he or she can do that is the leaders present would exploit the resources God has given and given to all of us, including the sun, and the sea and the land and the forest … so that child will grow to become a productive citizen,” said Prempeh.

He continued that “If we talk about the energy transition, we will talk about using what God has given us to use. We will continue to exploit our reserves for the socioeconomic development of the country.”

Niger’s petroleum minister, Mahamadou made a few points. “When it comes to international oil companies (IOCs), in the same way that African countries and ministers have to stay united and speak with one voice, IOCs have to join that single narrative that we share. When it comes to Niger, we have three IOCs active, so we are working closely with them to ensure the full potential of the oil and gas is exploited. When it comes to the environment, in Niger 80% of the population lives in rural areas. They rely on biomass and have to do damage to the environment. The way we proceed is we provide them with access to clean cooking and prevent the damage being done to the environment.”

Asked for his final thoughts, Ayuk said, to another burst of laughter and applause, that his message would be “drill, baby, drill”.

“That should be Africa’s message to the world. If you want to solve energy poverty, gas baby gas. Europe wants to call gas green: it has always been green. If it is green gas for Europe, why is it not green gas for Africa? We can do better if we tone down the rhetoric that energy producers are evil people or bad people. We need to go to COP27 backing up our energy producers. We should not be apologising for our energy sector. That is the message we should take.”



Speaking at an event on 21 October marking Vietnam’s 45th year in the organisation, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that every country had a role to play in tackling the climate crisis.

“The G20 economies together account for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 80% of global GDP. They must lead. They must reduce their emissions this decade – in line with keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees – and fully pivot to renewable energy. Wealthier countries must keep their promise to provide $100-billion to support developing countries to build resilience.

“Action on loss and damage is a moral imperative that must be front and centre at the upcoming UN Climate Conference – COP27 – in Egypt. All this is essential to rebuild trust between developed countries and the global south.

“But every country has a role to play,” said the UN chief.

“Because even if all developed countries were to reach net zero by 2030, we would still not be able to keep to 1.5 degrees of global warming without further action by the rest of the world. This means we cannot wait until after 2030 to move away from fossil fuels – particularly coal – or to peak global emissions. If the world does not cut emissions by 45% by 2030, then achieving net zero by 2050 will be a pipe dream. That will mean a climate nightmare for billions of people. We need all hands on deck now to realise an energy transition that is global, sustainable, just, inclusive and equitable.” 

OBP/DM