COP25 climate summit

Decolonization needed for net-zero emissions

Diana Vela Almeida, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Catherine Windey, University of Antwerp; Gert Van Hecken, University of Antwerp; Melissa Moreano, Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar; Nicolas Kosoy, McGill University, and Vijay Kolinjivadi, University of Antwerp

Who wins, who loses and whose natures are being talked about when nature-based solutions are proposed?

We are in the midst of a global environmental crisis and the sense of urgency becomes ever more evident with each additional story of climate disasters, ecological tipping points and climate records being shattered somewhere in the world.

At this moment, global representatives are gathering at the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Madrid to discuss immediate steps in halting further climate crisis.

Only a few weeks before COP25, a new set of alarming reports were released, pointing to the disastrous impact of continuously rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Thunberg and Monbiot rightly recognize that expenditures on global fossil fuel subsidies are 1,000 times more than the support for nature-based solutions. They claim that what is needed is “to protect, restore and fund nature.”

While the need for urgent action is clear, we must be vigilant to the ways in which “solutions” get proposed and to whose interests are favoured over others.

The solutions proposed at COP25 must reflect the demands of people. It is not clear that this is the case. For instance, the conference was meant to take place in Santiago, Chile, but was diverted to Madrid to avoid the nationwide strikes against economic policies that benefit the very rich at the expense of the majority. These same economic policies are responsible for ecological destruction. The stakes are high and time is running thin to fail to connect these issues.

The devil is in the details

As a group of researchers and practitioners who are deeply committed to exploring how nature-based solutions get implemented on the ground, we want to draw attention to some of the silences in Thunberg and Monbiot’s video. While we cannot emphasize enough that our intervention here aims to build further on their energy and efforts, we do think it is crucial to ask important questions that all too often tend to be overlooked.

Instead of furthering a “we are all in the same boat” rhetoric, we’ve got to address the deeply political issues of who wins, who loses and whose natures are being talked about when nature-based solutions are proposed.

Global corporations like Coca-Cola, Shell, Bayer and BP are increasingly dependent on greening their image to remain socially viable. Some environmental NGOs have been accused of accepting donations from corporations and imposing a view of conservation that makes extractive industries and care for nature compatible. These big environmental NGOs ought to have greater accountability for their actions.

---

Read more: More than carbon taxes, we need wholescale energy transitions

---

Transformational change must instead be rooted in environmental justice, emphasizing the intersections of nature conservation with migrant justice, bottom-up community-driven approaches to conservation and the recognition of land rights.

Sixteen-year-old Isra Hirsi, for instance, reminds us that climate advocacy has less to do with nature characterized as “a deep love for the great outdoors” and more to do with standing in support of communities whose air and water are being poisoned.

For meaningful change to happen, we must not allow business-as-usual with a greener face to co-opt the voices for change on the streets.

Protect what and for whom?

Thunberg and Monbiot say that nature-based solutions can only work if we leave fossil fuels in the ground. They are, of course, absolutely right. But what happens to people that live where nature-based solutions are being suggested?

For many people, nature is more than a tool or a collection of trees that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. The livelihoods of people are as much a part of forests as the insect drone and the tree canopy.

We need to break from conceptions of pristine nature and make it clear and unambiguous that environments are formed by people shaping nature in ways that reflect their ways of living.

Without questioning the necessity of endless economic growth, nature simply becomes a new source of extractive wealth, in which biodiversity and investment in nature conservation become big business, strategically employed in elaborate public relation ploys.

---

Read more: Greta Thunberg's radical climate change fairy tale is exactly the story we need

---

Similarly, putting monetary values on nature to justify its protection risks imposing a particular (western) language of valuation, while alienating the relationships people have with the living world and reducing it to profit-oriented transactions. Furthermore, purely focusing on carbon when talking about forest protection and restoration risks disregarding other meanings and relational values that forests have for people.

Let’s divest, decolonize and resist

We must be aware of the dangers of green growth, which refers to the idea of growing the economy and therefore maintaining business as usual. While there doesn’t seem to be a single definition for these type of business, they all seem to suggest decarbonization through technology improvements and putting market values for nature.

A mountain-top village in Nam Ha Protected Area, in Luang Namtha, Laos. (Shutterstock)

Green growth is not the same thing as responding to climate urgency. Let’s make sure any funding to protect nature will not be used to further private interests in the development of carbon markets, but rather for experimenting with divestment alternatives that focus on halting the fossil fuel industry, overfishing and the expanding frontier of agri-business.

Let’s restore … but let’s go further! Let’s recognize the original caretakers of the lands and waters and learn about nature from them. Nature is not an idyllic and passive landscape to consume. Greenwashed images of nature, where people are conveniently absent, shield us from the violent suppression of voices that have historically called those places home.

Let’s decolonize our views of nature so that we can better see it all around us and not somewhere “out there” and outside of our human communities. We need to deconstruct persistent ideas of nature as a global good rendering invisible local conceptions, needs and demands to the land by its inhabitants.

---

Read more: Indigenous hunters are protecting animals, land and waterways

---

We also must resist by supporting the struggle of millions of marginalized people around the world dispossessed from their lands, their forests, their waters and their ways of life.

This goes far beyond just rallying around the banner of an abstract environmentalism. Caring for nature means resisting the commodification of nature and standing up to environmental injustice. It also means getting to know the struggles and aspirations of environmental defenders and forest dwellers, who they fight and how you can help from where you are.

It is crucial to mobilize and get politically organized, to come together in solidarity for a long-haul struggle. The young people organizing around Thunberg’s call are an amazing turning point in global politics. Let’s seize the moment and never sell ourselves short.

In September, Greta Thunberg joined environmental activist and writer George Monbiot to produce a video, #NatureNow, to raise the potential of nature-based solutions “to repair our broken climate,” drawing on the processes and functions of nature, including reforestation and restoration of forests, wetlands and mangroves.

COP25 climate change meeting gets global thumbs down


By Thomas Gaulkin, December 16, 2019


The reviews are in: The United Nations’ COP25 climate conference was a flop. If the two weeks of talks were a holiday movie, it would probably be pulled from theaters before Christmas.

DISAPPOINTMENT AS MARATHON CLIMATE TALKS END

…major polluters resisted calls for ramping up efforts to keep global warming at bay and negotiators postponed debate about rules for international carbon markets for another year… (AP)
A ‘LOST’ OPPORTUNITY

…widely denounced as one of the worst outcomes in a quarter-century of climate negotiations… (New York Times)

HARD FEELINGS, FEW RESULTS AND NEW DOUBTS ABOUT GLOBAL UNITY

“We are not satisfied,” said the conference chair, Chilean Environment Minister Carolina Schmidt. (Washington Post)



I am disappointed with the results of #COP25.

The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis.

But we must not give up, and I will not give up.

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) December 15, 2019



The unimpressive showing began December 2 with nearly 200 countries and regional groups meeting on key efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions, like defining global carbon markets, financial support for developing states most affected by climate change, and setting more ambitious CO2 reduction targets.

But none of those efforts panned out. Despite thousands of hours of negotiation, resistance from high-emissions countries like the United States (which is on track to be out of the Paris Agreement by the time COP26 convenes in Glasgow next November) helped scuttle other participants’ plans. In the end, the strongest agreement that emerged was that these same issues should be taken up at future meetings, and that there is an “urgent need” to get national commitments in line with the goals set in the Paris Agreement—not exactly breaking news.

Displaying a mastery of diplomatic understatement, the chair of the African Group of Negotiators, Mohamed Nasr, took stock: “This is becoming very worrying for some countries.”

MADRID CLIMATE CONFERENCE ENDS IN FAILURE

…The talking was endless: more than 70,000 hours were spent failing to define a “market instrument,” something that was meant to have been decided at last year’s conference in Katowice, Poland… (Real Clear Energy)

MAJOR STATES SNUB CALLS FOR CLIMATE ACTION

“There are millions of people all around the world who are already suffering from the impacts of climate change,” Ian Fry, Tuvalu’s representative, told delegates. “Denying this fact could be interpreted by some to be a crime against humanity.” (NYTimes)
WAS ANYTHING ACHIEVED?

“…The can-do spirit that birthed the Paris agreement feels like a distant memory today…” (The Guardian)

So was there anything to feel good about after two weeks of failure?

Well, if you were a fossil fuel company, you might have thought it was a success. One observer described the event as a “corporate trade show.” “A gantlet of greenwashing ads on the walkway from the metro,” wrote Taylor Billings for the climate newsletter Heated. “Huge billboards featuring the likes of gas-giant Iberdrola, global water privatizing giant Suez, and energy utility Endesa, Spain’s biggest polluter. They’re all sponsors of this years’ COP.”

The lack of progress on pricing carbon was also considered a positive result by those who worried a bad agreement would have been worse than none at all. “Thankfully the weak rules on a market based mechanism, promoted by Brazil and Australia, that would have undermined efforts to reduce emissions has been shelved and the fight on that can continue next year at COP26 in Glasgow,” said Mohamed Adow, with the group Power Shift Africa.

And despite the deep frustrations expressed by climate activists like Greta Thunberg, demonstrators found ways to make their opinions known about the disappointing proceedings and still come away with some kind of optimism…


"Protesters dump manure outside COP25 climate summit in Madrid #NewsVideo #BreakingNews #Youtube #GlobalNews #CBSN #FoxNews #ABCNews #NBCNews #CNN" : https://t.co/7lR6WOc5KX

— Global News Report (@robinsnewswire) December 14, 2019

China has positioned itself as a leader in the fight against climate change, but is it really prepared for the role?

Climate crisis
Following the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, China, the world’s second-largest economy, was expected to take the environmental lead
As the deadlock at the recent COP25 conference shows, Beijing has other plans

Stuart Lau Published: 9 Feb, 202


Infernos have burned  through the Amazon and much of Australia. Island nations from Vanuatu to the Virgin Islands are inhaling as deeply as possible before disappearing under a rising sea.Climate break­down is proving to be every bit as dramatic as Al Gore was when he stood on a crane beside his stage-sized chart in order to keep up with the rising temperature line flying off the graph, in An Inconvenient Truth (2006).

Neither that documentary film nor the former United States vice-president’s 2017 sequel got everything right but some of Gore’s grimmest warnings have come to pass in the intervening 14 years. The US, the world’s largest economy, and the fossil-fuel industry have an obvious interest in seeing business continue as usual but the tension between those demanding drastic measures to mitigate climate collapse and those fighting to protect the status quo is, in some ways, working to the advantage of the second-largest economy.

China likes to cast itself as a world leader in tackling climate change –
witness the recent initiative to ban single-use plastics – particularly in the wake of
US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2016
Paris climate agreement. For scientists and environmentalists, however, the truth is less convenient.

China remains – by far – the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, with total emissions in 2018 standing at about 14 gigatonnes, according to United Nations statistics. That’s more than twice those of the US, although China’s per-capita emissions roughly match those of Japan and the European Union.

A firefighter surveys a bush fire around the town of Nowra, in the Australian state of New South Wales, on December 31, 2019. Photo: AFP

While many countries have been phasing out the use of coal, China increased its capacity for the emission-intense fossil fuel by 42.9 gigawatts in the 18 months to June 2019. This rendered the 8.1GW reduction made by the rest of the world in the same period almost irrelevant. Furthermore, under the geopolitical Belt and Road Initiative, China plans to finance a quarter of all new coal projects in the rest of the world, including plants in South Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

And so in December, at the UN’s most recent round of climate talks,
COP25 – hastily rearranged in the Spanish capital, after the Chilean government deemed the original venue, protest-wracked Santiago, too risky a proposition – the Beijing delegation rolled into the Feria de Madrid conference complex with conflicting priorities. China had to at least appear to be embracing measures to tackle climate change but any new plans that could work against the interests of the politically influential domestic coal industry had to be stalled.

Behind the armoured vehicles of the Spanish military and the glass exterior of the Feria de Madrid, China circled the wagons, forming an alliance with Brazil, India and South Africa to emphasise its role as a “developing country”, and blocking proposals supported by the EU on clear targets to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and the creation of a global carbon-trading market. In contrast to the growing despair of the environmental groups and activists who attended the 12 days of talks, China’s delegation of more than 60 celebrated their nation’s ability “to safeguard the interests of developing nations”, which they believed sent “a very good warning to developed nations on certain issues”, a member told mainland media.

Given Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, China had been seen by other powers as a crucial partner on climate policy going into the conference. Emmanuel Macron told Chinese President Xi Jinping in November that, “cooperation between China and the European Union in this respect [joint commitments to reduce emissions] is decisive”. But the French president’s call appeared to have fallen on deaf ears when Beijing’s
new top climate negotiator, Zhao Yingmin, walked into the Madrid talks, flanked by ministry officials and technocrats.

Read more 

China’s role ‘critical’ if world is to meet climate change targets

Read more 

China’s green bonds show how we can fund climate change goals

Read more 

How long do we really have to save the planet from global warming?

“China insists that, in order to realise the global goals set by the Paris Agreement after 2020 […] developed nations shall take action first, drastically pushing up the strength of action and setting the time for achieving carbon neutral­ity much earlier,” a confident Zhao told an audience of mostly Chinese businesspeople and policymakers in the China Pavilion. “There would therefore be a technologically and economically viable policy path for developing nations to follow.”

Having just turned 55, the tall, bespectacled Zhao is a lifelong Communist Party member whose career has focused entirely on environment-related work, accordi

“Behind closed doors, Zhao is a cheerful but cautious figure,” a negotiator from the Benelux region of Europe told me, as he took a break from lengthy talks to refuel at the conference centre’s Burger King. Judging by the packed restaurant – and the ubiquitous brown paper bags seen around the venue – it’s hard to conclude that many partici­pants found the presence of a fast-food joint at a climate conference distasteful. The European negotiator, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media, continued, “But [Zhao’s] negotiating tactics were less impressive than [those of] his predecessor, the very well known Mr Xie.”

One of the architects of the Paris Agreement,
Xie Zhenhua had helmed China’s climate policies since 2007. He abruptly stepped down as special representative for climate change in late October due to “poor health”, according to a Chinese delegate in Madrid, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Through extensive mingling with experts and policymakers worldwide, Xie had established an image of being affable in person but hard-headed during negotiations. His successor is apparently even less of a pushover.

“It was very difficult to talk to the Chinese side this year,” Bas Eickhout, chair of the European Parliament delegation to COP25, told Post Magazine. “It seems to me they are trying to postpone things until COP26. I doubt that would do any good to China’s international image.”

The next round of climate talks, COP26 will be held in Glasgow, Scotland, this November, with the opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, the aspirational goal set out in the Paris Agreement, fast disappearing. There are no legal obligations for countries to submit improved plans to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of the year, however, and the following deadline is not until 2025, by which time, the drafters of the agreement hoped, the world would be ready to significantly raise annual goals above those established for 2020 and would have put mechanisms in place to achieve that scaling up.

At the Copenhagen UN climate talks in 2009, the goal was set for the world to raise US$100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to back efforts by vulner­able, poorer states to shift their economies onto a greener path and adapt to a harsher climate. The amount rich nations and private-sector donors raised in 2016 exceeded US$70 billion, according to data in a biennial UN assessment.

Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief negotiator at the Paris Agreement. Photo: AFP

This money is being put to use in places such as Fiji. The South Pacific island nation is “one of the smallest contri­butors to global carbon emissions”, says the UN, yet it faces “some of the most devastating consequences of extreme weather patterns”. In 2012, residents of Vunidogoloa, on the shore of the second-largest island, Vanua Levu, became the first village in Fiji to have to relocate due to climate breakdown. UN projects include helping Fiji transition completely to renewable energy sources by 2030 and adopt a reforestation policy, intended to store carbon in the planted trees.

Lest there remained any doubt the world’s second-largest economy considered itself a developing country, a statement released days before the end of COP25 reinforced the idea that Beijing needs money from the developed world to reach emissions levels rich nations have laid out but have yet to achieve themselves. Released jointly with China’s three allies, the statement read, “There has been a lack of progress on the pre-2020 agenda, adaptation and issues related to […] climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building support. This imbalance needs to be immediately rectified.”

The quartet alleged wealthier nations had failed to adequately help the developing world both deal with rising carbon emissions and adopt less polluting power infrastructure.

China and her allies had not themselves been idle, they insisted. “[The four countries] have already set forth climate policies and contributions reflecting our highest possible ambition, above and beyond our historical responsibilities.”

According to Climate Action Tracker, run by the Germany-based NewClimate Institute, China’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agree­ment, to be achieved by 2030, is rated “highly insufficient”, which means that the official commitment is “not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5 degrees Celsius limit”. However, “China’s next step could be to submit a strengthened NDC to the Paris Agreement by 2020, something it has indicated it intends to do, which would set a positive example for others to follow”, the institute says, on its website.

A corner of the China Pavilion at the COP25, in Madrid, Spain. Photo: Xinhua

In Madrid, China and her allies urged rich countries to set their own positive example, and quickly: “The time for action is now, and not next year or thereafter.”

The man leading the struggle to persuade the developed world to act more decisively on its climate pledges made a low-key debut. Zhao gave only one major speech during COP25 and did not hold a press conference, giving inter­views only to Chinese state-run media. His other appear­ances were to present the opening remarks – mostly formulaic speeches about how much China has already achieved on climate change, how willing Beijing is to cooperate at the UN level and pledges made by Xi – at the China Pavilion, one of 33 rooms constructed in the Feria de Madrid for delegate groups.

The Chinese pavilion was designed with a rounded doorway of the type seen in imperial-style parks across China and was next to that of the Arctic Council. It played host to talks such as “The Chinese Story of Ecological Civilisation” and “Experience Sharing of the Synergizing Action on the Environment and Climate”, and Zhao’s appearances drew few non-Chinese listeners.

When pushing his way through a media scrum on December 11, surrounded by security guards, Zhao did speak to the press, to claim China wanted to make progress with regard to the most controversial clause in the Paris Agreement, Article 6, which expresses the desire to estab­lish an emissions trading system. And in remarks made at the China Pavilion, Zhao emphasised his country’s readiness to roll out, some time this year, domestic carbon-trading, under which provinces could trade emission credits between themselves. Beyond that, though, Zhao wasn’t giving much away.

It may never be publicly known what he feels about the “endless rows over agendas, ongoing unresolved splits over who should pay and insufficient attention and funding for adaptation and resilience” that beset climate meetings, according to former British COP President Claire O’Neill.

Environmentalist, documentary maker and former US vice-president Al Gore. Photo: Shutterstock


“It was particularly awful at the last COP in Madrid,” wrote O’Neill, in a fiery letter to the British prime minister, dated February 3, in the wake of her sacking. “While half a million climate action protesters gathered in the streets, I sat in plenary sessions where global negotiators debated whether our meeting should be classified as “Informal” or “Informal-Informal”; others argued over the structure of tabs, tables and colours in reports (rather than the commitments countries would make) and some of the world’s wealthiest oil-rich countries made their annual demand for global funding to offset the damage all this low carbon planning would do to their economy.

“Some teams did rise above the negativity [...] You can’t fault the negotiators for doing their jobs sometimes under awful circumstances – it’s a systemic failure of global vision and leadership.”

One of the few non-Chinese speakers invited to take the stage at the China Pavilion in Madrid was Mr Inconvenience himself. Gore, now 71, showered his hosts with diplomatic deference and recounted the good memories he had of former climate envoy Xie. Zhao and other Chinese delegates listened attentively, some through interpreting headphones.

Addressing Zhao directly from the dais, Gore then said, “We had a candid conversation earlier about the difficult issue of financing the building and development of the coal plants in other countries in the world, and, please allow me even in the midst of this warm hospitality, to express my heartfelt opinion, Mr Vice-Minister, that it would redound to China’s everlasting credit if this policy of financing the construction of so many new coal plants in other countries could respectfully be reviewed and reconsidered.

“Perhaps the traffic light is now showing green – but blink yellow and then blink red, and decisions might be made in favour of alternative sources of energy in the way China finances development in other countries.”

As soon as Gore finished speaking, Zhao rose to shake his hand. Then China’s top climate negotiator walked away alone, hurrying onto other meetings. And despite the ever-so-polite rebuke delivered by the world’s second-most famous climate activist (sorry, Al, Greta has you beaten), Zhao left Madrid for Beijing able to savour his first inter­national diplomatic victory. No commitments were made and China won another round of deferment.

Whatever climate horrors befall us between now and November, it seems likely Zhao will walk into the COP26 talks with his head held high and perhaps more to offer an ever-more desperate world. Gore has yet to confirm his attendance.

Cop26: Glasgow climate change conference 2020

UK urged to tie green recovery from Covid-19 crisis to Cop26 summit

Climate experts push Britain, as talks host, to work on ‘zero carbon’ route from pandemic


Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
THE GUARDIAN Thu 28 May 2020

Former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, fourth from right, at the UN Climate Change Conference COP25 in December 2019. Photograph: Cristina Quicler/AFP/Getty Images

The UK government must urgently set out clear plans on a green recovery from the coronavirus crisis if the delayed UN climate summit is to be a success, say leading experts.

The climate talks known as Cop26 and scheduled to be held in Glasgow, are expected to be postponed by a year from their original date this November, dashing hopes that the summit would be swiftly reconvened. A formal decision on the delay will be taken by the UN Thursday evening.

Tying the Cop26 talks to a green recovery from the Covid-19 crisis is now essential to regain momentum and ensure the summit produces the fresh global commitment needed on the climate crisis, experts say.

Mary Robinson, former UN climate envoy, and chair of the Elders group of international leader, said: “Very definitely we need to tie together a green recovery and Cop26 – that is imperative. UK leadership can and should urge forward a net-zero carbon transition from the Covid-19 crisis. Leadership is needed, moral, political, economic and social leadership.”

Achim Steiner, administrator of the UN Development Programme, said: “The UK presidency comes at an absolutely critical time. There is an extraordinary opportunity to restart the economy and look at creative ways [to recover]. We need to find ways to become more resilient.”

The Cop26 talks are seen as vital because nations are obliged under the Paris agreement of 2015 to present renewed plans every five years on how to meet the legally binding goal of holding global heating to no more than 2C, and preferably no more than 1.5C, above pre-industrial levels.

Current commitments on curbing emissions, set in Paris, would take the world far beyond those limits, to about 3C of heating, which scientists say would spell disaster around the world. That means fresh national commitments on carbon reductions by 2030 must be set this year, ahead of the Cop26 talks.

As host nation the UK carries responsibility for bringing governments together to make Cop26, the most important conference since Paris in 2015, a success.

Without a clear plan of its own to reach net-zero carbon emissions, a target enshrined in British law, the UK will struggle for credibility in urging other countries to come forward with national plans, according to participants and close observers of the talks.

Some countries would like to see the UK present a formal submission to the UN, setting out its emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050. Known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC), these formal plans are a legal requirement under the Paris accord.

“It would be a very welcome and important signal [to set out an NDC],” said Steiner. “We need to see a high level of ambition and a national strategy.”

Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief, told a committee of MPs last week: “It definitely would set a good example to other countries. I believe the UK should do it as soon as it responsibly can.”

Developing countries are also anxious that NDCs should not be delayed by the long hiatus before Cop26.

Janine Felson, Belize’s ambassador to the UN and chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, said: “All developed countries should bring forward their NDCs.”

Few large-scale economies have submitted an NDC yet. Chile, the original host of Cop25, in 2019 (before the transfer to Madrid), submitted its plan earlier this year, Norway has strengthened its NDC, and Rwanda last week became the first African nation to do so. Japan set out plans that drew widespread criticism for lack of ambition but China, India, the EU, and other large green house gas emitters are still holding back.

Leading figures have said that the formal submission of NDCs can wait while ministers and officials consider the impact of the Covid-19 crisis. Yet the UK has to urgently show leadership by announcing concrete measures for a green economic recovery.

Lord Stern, a climate economist, said: “It’s more important to set out actions for a green recovery, that is key. We can do that now, bring forward these carbon reductions. Set out policies and then we can see how the NDC can become more ambitious.”

The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government’s independent advisers, has delayed until December the publication of its advice on the country’s sixth carbon budget, in order to take account of the impact of the Covid-19 crisis. Chris Stark, chief executive of the committee, said it would be better for the government to delay the NDC too.

Setting out a formal NDC was less urgent than setting out a clear direction for the economic recovery, added Robinson. “I was very close to despair in January,” she said, referring to a flawed start to the UK’s presidency, when the government fired its initial choice for Cop president, the former MP Claire O’Neill, and failed to produce a clear plan for the summit. “I could not see an ambition [to have a good Cop26]. Now Covid-19 has turned the world upside down. We have to get up momentum for a green and nature-based recovery.”

The delay of Cop26 also means that other international meetings can lay the ground for success. The UK holds the 2021 presidency of the G7 group of industrialised nations, whose leaders are likely to meet in the summer when Cop26 will be discussed. Italy, co-host with the UK of Cop26, will chair the G20 with a similar aim.

Carbon dioxide emissions have fallen sharply amid the lockdowns, by about 17% on average in early April, according to a recent study. But that will have no measurable effect on efforts to meet the Paris goals, as emissions will resume their rise as the lockdowns ease unless lasting changes are made to countries’ energy production and consumption patterns.

A spokesperson for the UK government said: “As hosts of Cop26 and the first major economy to legislate for net zero, the UK is committed to delivering a clean and resilient economic recovery from Covid-19.

“The great global challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss have not gone away and it will be the duty of every responsible government to see our economies are revived and rebuilt in a way that stands the test of time. That’s why we’re calling on all nations to come forward with more ambitious climate plans.”

ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS --- DW--- DEUTSCHE WELLE 

Amazon sees alarming rise in deforestation
Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon rainforest last month jumped to the highest level since records began.

Swedish town to integrate refugees by housing them with pensioners

The first residents have moved into a new housing scheme that mixes seniors, young people and foreigners who came to Sweden as unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. They are required to socialize with each other.

Merkel: Germany needs skilled non-EU workers
It's your chance!


Meet the German family members who opened their hearts and home to not one, not two, not three... but seven Syrian refugees.
https://www.facebook.com/deutschewellenews/videos/574431400013263/?t=24

We've all been there Greta.Greta Thunberg's trip home on board an overcrowded German train

On her way back to Sweden from a climate conference in Madrid, teenage activist Greta Thunberg encountered Germany's overcrowded trains. Twitter users commiserated with her situation.

DW News Even the world's largest CO2 emitters are suffering the effects of climate change. So what's stopping countries like Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, the US and China from going green?DW Environment analyses what's causing the hold up: https://p.dw.com/p/3UhA9

DW.COM

COP25: Why are high emission countries lagging on climate…

CHINESE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE UIGHURS 

"They gave us injections and took blood. We didn't know what it was for [...] later we learned that the younger women stopped having their periods."
Rights groups estimate that more than a million Uighurs, an ethnic minority native to China's Xinjiang region, are held in camps that are run like prisons and aimed at eradicating Uighur culture.

Former Germany midfielder Mesut Özil has criticized Muslim countries for not speaking up for minorities subjected to abuse in China. More than 1 million people have been sent to reeducation camps in the Xinjiang region: p.dw.com/p/3Un5Z

DW.COM

Germany's Mesut Özil condemns Muslim silence over Uighurs | DW | 14.12.2019

https://www.facebook.com/deutschewellenews/videos/2632204463526102/




                       ---30---

What the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement means for the global fight against climate change

New Atlanticist by Margaret Jackson and Jorge Gastelumendi

Related Experts: Margaret Jackson, Jorge Gastelumendi


COP25 High Level Climate Champion Gonzalo Munoz holds the copy of The Paris Agreement as he poses with Britain's former Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth and newly appointed COP26 President, Claire Perry, Italian Environment Minister Sergio Costa and Spanish State Secretary of Environment Hugo Moran (not pictured) during the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid, Spain December 13, 2019. REUTERS/Susana Ver


The United States finalized its formal withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change on November 4, exactly one year after it began the process. Today, with the presidential election outcome still undetermined, the United States is the first country to step away from the historic climate accord.

US President Donald J. Trump first announced his intent to withdraw on June 1, 2017. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement stipulates that a country must wait three years after the agreement went into force on November 4, 2016, to withdraw, at which point the country may do so by submitting written notification to the Secretariat, and then wait one year until the withdrawal takes effect.

When former US President Barack Obama spoke about the success of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, he said, “Together, we’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one.” The Parties of the Paris Agreement—then 195 nations—agreed on a bottom-up approach to combat climate change and hold the global average temperature below two degrees Celsius, with best efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees. The climate accord presents a framework for transparent reporting and monitoring of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a pathway towards a climate-resilient development, as well as a mechanism to increase climate ambition on mitigation and adaptation every five years through the resubmission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).

The urgency to address climate change-induced impacts keeps increasing. While immediately stopping GHG emissions is essential, legacy emissions mean that a heated planet, now at 1.0 degrees Celsius (~1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer is currently subject to stronger and more frequent and devastating storms, floods, and fires. Communities, especially cities, are forced to adapt and withstand these climate-fueled disasters.

Climate change affects every country around the world and can only be solved through a coordinated, multilateral effort. The Paris Agreement has been the most effective platform to bring countries together around this issue. Despite its shortcomings, the countries involved are willing to come to the table year after year to make collective progress during the annual Conference of the Parties (COP).

The United Kingdom will host COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 after postponing a year due to the coronavirus pandemic. The UK is using this year to increase pressure on countries, businesses, cities, and regions to aim for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and to make the commitment before the next COP, as well as mobilizing an adaptation and resilience global action agenda jointly with Egypt. In addition to the frequency and severity of extreme weather and extreme heat events around the world that raised awareness of the risk of climate change, this kind of geopolitical pressure led to unprecedented momentum across the public and private sectors in a race to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century.

The European Union launched the Green Deal with a promise to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and the recent carbon neutrality statements of China, Japan, and South Korea indicate that the world is moving ahead in the fight against climate change, with or without US leadership. Last week, two US allies—Japan and the Republic of Korea—announced carbon neutrality commitments by 2050, one week before the US presidential election, and two weeks after Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s 2060 carbon neutrality target. President Trump’s “America First” agenda and the US absence in climate and the global COVID-19 response have left the door wide open for China to step in as a leader in international climate governance.

The US withdrawal from the climate accord could be short-lived if former Vice President Joe Biden is elected. Biden stated he intends to rejoin the Paris Agreement and implement an ambitious climate agenda under his “Build Back Better” campaign, including a target of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, a commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, and the promotion of green infrastructure and climate resilience as components of a global economic recovery.

However, a Republican-led Senate could hinder his progress and present obstacles to reinstating the environmental and climate regulations that the Trump administration rolled back over the last four years. The work to regain confidence in the United States as a climate leader will start at home with more ambitious policy action, a commitment to clean energy innovation and deployment, and improved resilience measures.

Another four years of a Trump presidency would hinder international efforts to fight the causes and impacts posed by climate change and make the goal of peaking global carbon emissions by 2030, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nearly impossible. The United States is the second-highest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the highest emitter in per-capita emissions. The Climate Action Tracker labels US climate policies as “critically insufficient” and attributes most of the reductions in emissions over the next few years to the economic slowdown from the pandemic.

However, the momentum to decrease emissions will not wane at the US subnational level, whatever the outcome of the election. Coalitions like We Are Still In are leading the charge for climate ambition in statehouses, city halls, tribal governments, and campuses across the country. Together, they aim to reduce US GHG emissions by 37 percent from 2005 levels, though decisive federal government action could accomplish much more. The United Nations and other countries are committed to working with US stakeholders who share the determination to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, regardless of the position of US federal leadership.

The pandemic illustrated the critical role for strong national leadership in combating a crisis and what happens when countries—including the United States—fail to cooperate on a multilateral level to find a solution. The global influence of the United States will decline if the next president does not commit to a 2050 net-zero target, bolster worldwide adaptation and resilience efforts, and rejoin the Paris Agreement. Climate change is emerging as a central pillar of key multilateral forums such as the Group of Seven (G7) and the Group of Twenty (G20) and will be an integral part of foreign policy from trade to health to security. The pressure to act will not abate.

Margaret Jackson is deputy director for climate and advanced energy at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

Jorge Gastelumendi is director of global policy for the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center.

Either way, this election is a major turning point for our climate future

Elections 2020 by Kathy Baughman McLeod

View on Thursday April 23 2020 not far from Fienstorf, Germany. (REUTERS)

As the nation braces for the presidential election next week, there’s arguably no issue beyond the COVID-19 crisis for which the stakes are higher than climate change policy. The increasingly alarming and measurable impact of global warming in the United States alone—as evidenced by the four hurricanes that have smacked the state of Louisiana since August and the recent devastation wrought by the California wildfires, which have scorched more acreage than in any year since CalFire began keeping records in 1932—means that the outcome on November 3 will mark a true make-or-break moment for climate change policy in the United States.

This hot-button topic is one on which the two candidates couldn’t be further apart—and also one that’s front and center in the minds of the American public. According to a survey conducted this summer by Pew Research Center, 68 percent of voters feel that climate change is an important issue in their voting decision. So, what can we expect on this issue from a second Trump term or a Biden administration?

The current administration’s view of the impact of climate change is reflected in its record and messaging over the last four years, during which the US environmental policy has been characterized by a denial of science and a steady dismantling of environmental policies governing clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals. The administration has rolled back seventy-two regulations—including limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions—with twenty-seven more in progress.

These rollbacks include weakening fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks, lifting a freeze on new coal leases on public lands, and changing how the Endangered Species Act is applied, thus making it more difficult to protect wildlife from the long-term threats posed by climate change (like significant changes in habitat).

Conversely, the Trump administration issued an executive order to support the One Trillion Trees Initiative, which aims to promote and build resilient forests by restoring and conserving a trillion trees around the world by the end of the decade. Some ecologists estimate that this initiative would significantly lessen heat-related impacts by sequestering about 25 percent of the carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, many of the Trump administration’s actions have positioned climate action as a threat to the US economy, while championing and facilitating the growth of the coal, oil, and gas industries (despite the fact that renewable energy presently represents the greatest area of job growth in the energy sector), and repeatedly labeling climate activists as alarmists. There is little reason to expect a change in this stance should President Trump be reelected.

Former Vice President Biden, meanwhile, has proclaimed climate change to be a national priority, promising unprecedented executive action out of the gate to both mitigate the impact of a warming planet and position the US as the global leader in pioneering environmental policy. He has vowed not only to immediately recommit to the Paris Agreement, but also to rally the rest of the world to ramp up their own domestic climate targets.

A man rides a bike on a flooded street following Hurricane Irma in North Miami, Florida, US, September 11, 2017. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri


His overarching goal stateside is to ensure the United States achieves a 100 percent clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. To set the country on the right track, he plans to advance legislation during his first year in office that establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets by his first term’s end in 2025; makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation; and incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the country. Such innovations will focus especially on areas most vulnerable to climate change, including the coastal communities suffering from the effects of sea level rise, salt water intrusion and sunny day flooding, as well as the storms that increasingly hammer vulnerable areas, where 40 percent of Americans make their home.

To address the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—underfunded for decades and further strained by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as new work-from-home patterns test utility systems and underscore the need for widely accessible broadband internet and reliable transportation—Biden has also vowed to take action. In July he announced a plan to spend $2 trillion over four years on clean energy and climate resilient initiatives to rejuvenate the transportation, electricity, and building sectors, which he believes will create millions of new jobs—including one million jobs developing and manufacturing electric cars—for what he hopes is a foundation for sustainable growth and improved public health.

Former Vice President Biden’s goals include achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest energy-efficiency standards, and providing every American city with more than 100,000 residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options. Furthermore, it promises to make communities that have suffered disproportionately from pollution—including low-income rural and urban communities and communities of color—the first to benefit from these far-reaching initiatives.

Predictably, there are factions of the climate change movement that believe Biden’s strategy to mitigate global warming isn’t aggressive enough. Climate advocacy groups have argued that the former vice president’s plan doesn’t provide a sufficiently clear and short path for the United States to decrease its dependency on fossil fuels. However, it stands to reason that in order to go further, he must first cross the election finish line—which depends in part on winning over undecided and moderate voters in swing states. And to do so, he needs to walk a careful line, especially in regard to energy policy in crucial states like Pennsylvania, where the fate of fossil fuel-based fracking weighs heavily on many voters’ minds.

As we move forward into the next presidential administration, the science and data are clear: the United States needs new policies and investments to avoid the worst human and economic impacts of climate change to our country. Next week’s election is arguably the most important in our history in regard to climate change and its increasingly traumatic—and expensive—ramifications, for both our country and our world.

Kathy Baughman McLeod is senior vice president and director of the Adrienne Arsht Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center at the Atlantic Council.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist