5 Big Developments From the Beginning of the Paris Climate Summit

After just a few days, billions of dollars have been committed to clean energy.

 

Yann Caradec/Flickr
Yann Caradec/Flickr

by , reposted from Climate Desk, Dec 3, 2015

On Tuesday, more than 100 heads of state departed from Paris, after kicking off two weeks of international negotiations intended to limit climate change. But even though the biggest names have left the building (actually a converted regional airport), the real action is just getting started. If history is any guide, diplomats will be holed up in a room negotiating minute textual details until—or well past—the last possible minute next Friday.

Still, the last few days have seen a barrage of developments that aren’t necessarily tied to the core negotiating text. It started on Sunday with a joint commitment from dozens of nations and private corporations to vastly increase their spending on clean energy research and development. Here are a few more key developments, in no particular order:

1. New milestone for fossil fuel divestment: Some of the most prominent activist groups at the summit are focusing their attention on divestment—that is, getting high-profile individuals and institutions to pull their money out of fossil fuel companies. In September, that campaign reached a high-water mark, when a study commissioned by a coalition of environmental groups found that hundreds of institutions and thousands of individuals with assets totaling $2.6 trillion had pledged to divest from fossil fuels. Bear in mind, the actual amount of money being pulled out of fossil fuel companies is substantially smaller than that. But it’s nevertheless a pretty impressive number because of the growing movement it represents.

On Wednesday, the same coalition updated that figure: It now tops $3.4 trillion. Again, it’s unclear how much of this is actually being divested. (It’s not always easy for a complex institution such as a university to know how much money, if any, it actually has invested in a given industry). But it’s striking that the total jumped nearly $1 trillion in just a couple of months.

The African Development Bank promised to pour $12 billion into increasing access to electricity.

2. Big boost to clean energy in Africa: Sub-Saharan Africa has one of the world’s lowest rates of access to electricity; nearly two-thirds of people there live without power. That makes it hard to grow a business, hard for kids to study, and hard to store fresh food and medical supplies. As we’ve reported before, it also represents a huge opportunity for renewable energy. Small-scale wind and solar projects, while not up to the task of fully supplying the continent’s electricity needs, can often be deployed more rapidly than big fossil-fuel-fired power plants.

On Tuesday, the African Development Bank announced that it would pour $12 billion into energy projects over the next five years and seek to attract up to $50 billion in parallel private-sector funding. The project has two goals: to vastly expand basic energy access, and to do so cleanly, by boosting the continent’s renewable energy capacity tenfold. This is just the latest sign that the clean energy industry is likely to be one of the biggest winners from the Paris climate talks.

3. China is playing ball: President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping set the joint climate action ball rolling more than a year ago, when they announced a sweeping plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions and pool resources on clean energy. Since then, China and the United States—the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 carbon polluters, respectively—have stayed close on their climate agendas. That trend appears to be continuing in Paris, a rare point of diplomatic accord in an otherwise testy relationship. China has said it could agree to reevaluating its climate goals every five years, a protocol that the United States, the European Union, and other leading emitters are pushing strongly to include in the final agreement. On Wednesday, Chinese officials back in Beijing also announced deep new targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

India has also rolled out a new $30 million plan to invest in clean energy, although that country remains opposed to the five-year review standard. Russia, meanwhile, doesn’t appear interested in doing much at all. Tensions between the United States, China, India, Russia, Canada, Brazil, and other heavyweights—not to mention small island nations and other highly vulnerable players—are likely to become more apparent as the talks progress into finer minutiae.

4. Who’s going to pay for all this? One of the most contentious issues in Paris is climate finance, a term that refers broadly to cash ponied up by wealthy, high-polluting nations such as the United States to help poorer countries adapt to climate change impacts and reduce their carbon emissions. In 2009, at the last major climate summit, developed countries agreed to raise $100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020. That goal is about halfway met, according to the World Resources Institute. On Tuesday, Obama announced an additional $30 million from the United States for climate adaptation in the most vulnerable countries, on top of a $3 billion promise the United States made to the UN Green Climate Fund last year.

But it’s unclear how the Paris agreement will ensure that this fundraising continues. Delegates will have to hash out what sorts of commitments can or should be legally binding, how to count the money, how to spend it, andother important considerations. Jake Schmidt, an international programs director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said many developing countries are pushing to include language in the agreement that would require the total level of finance to be gradually ramped up over time.

“I don’t think anyone is envisioning there will be a new [specific] number, but rather asking that $100 billion is a floor to the finance that will be mobilized over time,” he said.

The same is true of countries’ various greenhouse gas reduction targets, he said: A big question at the talks is how these commitments can be enforced and strengthened past the next decade or two.

“We’re leaving Paris with a sense that it could be 10 or 15 years before we return to these targets,” he said. “If we don’t have another moment to reevaluate these, then we have a problem.”

5. Cities are playing a big role: National governments aren’t the only players in Paris. Cities and states are also offering their own commitments. One of the most prominent voices at the summit so far has been that of California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who is pushing a group of 60 states and cities around the world to sign on to a sub-national climate agreement. Meanwhile, on Tuesday a group of 21 mayors committed to dedicating 10 percent of their municipal budgets to climate “resilience,” which includes steps like making infrastructure more weatherproof and restricting energy consumption by buildings. They include the mayors of Paris, New Orleans, Oakland, Rio de Janeiro, and other global cities. SOURCE


 

Preparing for Failure in Paris

Outside the climate talks, activists offer their own vision for the future.

Canadian author Naomi Klein has criticised Australia’s immigration policies as “‘prison camps for safety’ from the man who brought you ‘coal is good for humanity’”. Photograph: Cole Bennetts/Getty Images
BY JONATHAN M. KATZ, reposted from New Republic, Dec 2, 2015

PARIS, France—A group of radicals gathered on the periphery of the Paris climate talks Wednesday to issue a manifesto. “A transformation of the world’s entire economic system is essential,” their missive began in typically grandiose fashion. “Our economies are hard-wired to fossil fuels. To overcome this carbon entanglement, countries need to implement strong climate policies, including strengthening carbon pricing and … .”


 


Wait a second, I mixed up my notes. That was today’s joint press release from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Energy Agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency, and the International Transport Forum, four of the stodgiest policy groups around. It was issued from the heart of the United Nations Climate Change Conference and Twenty-First Conference of the Parties, known semi-affectionately on the inside as “COP21.”

The radicals were at another event, far outside the well-guarded hangar walls of the Le Bourget airport complex. With them were moderates, labor leaders, community advocates, progressive politicians, and a guy in a flannel shirt who described himself during the question-and-answer session as a “possibilitator.” Like the OECD and its partners, the group at the Salle Olympe de Gouges, a multipurpose theater less than a mile from the site of two of the November 13 suicide bombings, called for total transformation to stop climate change from wiping out much of the habitable world.

Unlike those groups, however, the event’s organizers have no faith that any sort of significant transformation will be possible in the accord being hammered out now. So they offered a plan of their own.

The headliner at the sold-out event (tickets were free but limited; attendees lined up for more than half an hour to get in) was Naomi Klein, the Canadian journalist and author whose 2014 book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, has become a rallying point for a large swath of the environmental movement. Colleagues and collaborators joined her onstage to launch their own vision for the future in the form of a pamphlet called “The Leap Manifesto.”

“I refuse to put our future in the hands of those cloistered at Le Bourget,” Klein said to applause. Afterward she told me independent efforts will be essential after the failure she is sure will come. “I thought there was a pretty good chance that people would leave Paris demoralized. And you know we can’t afford to lose years to depression as we did after Copenhagen” following the 2009 climate talks there, she added.

The very international crowd at the Salle Olympe de Gouges—named, perhaps appropriately, for an early feminist and abolitionist playwright who was guillotined in 1793 for siding with the wrong Jacobins—represented a wide range of views. Hassan Yussuff, the leader of Canada’s national labor movement, was on stage alongside a Danish member of parliament and an advocate from Canada’s Cree Nation. Some in the crowd were also attending the talks and peripheral events at Le Bourget. Others rose to express their skepticism over the concept of representative democracy, some visibly upset that the manifesto’s authors would even consider lobbying politicians with their ideas.

The crowd was united in their shared advance disappointment over what they think the Paris talks will yield. They are discouraged by UN officials’ pre-conference resignation that the likely agreement will not keep emissions below the 2-degree average global temperature increase that scientists say is a critical point (much less the 1.5-degree limit that countries in the most vulnerable situations, especially small islands, have demanded). They are dismayed that the United States in particular is not only fighting against a legally binding emissions agreement, but, as Klein put it, “trying to redefine ‘legally binding’” in ways that will allow corporations and markets to determine the course of action. They were also furious about France’s crackdown on environmental protesters, justified by a state of emergency imposed after the November 13 attacks.

Though the negotiations at the official climate talks are only in their third day, and the first since the heads of state left and negotiators could really get to work, it’s already fair to say the group’s manifesto will be significantly different from anything that might get signed by governments in mid-December. For one, it calls for 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, with the shift starting immediately.

It calls for collective community control of new energy systems, with priority given to “indigenous peoples and others on the front lines of polluting industrial activity.” It also seeks an end to policies that many officials don’t think of being directly linked to the environment, including budget cuts in the name of “austerity,” tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, and profligate military spending. It joins the OECD’s Wednesday proposal in calling for an end to fossil-fuel subsidies.

Oh, and it only applies to Canada.

“The idea for the event today is that we would be globally launching our leap and saying, ‘What do you think? Is this something that could work in your country?’” Bianca Mugyenyi, a Ugandan-born Canadian author and activist who works with Klein as an outreach coordinator, told me. Like-minded advocates in Australia are working on their own plan; the group sees the European Green Manifesto as also being inspired by their work.

That variety and focus on local needs is key, Mugyenyi added. “We don’t want people have necessarily the same demands because they’re very specific to different countries.”

The pamphlet is named for Leap Day, as in February 29 (and not, the group’s FAQ stresses, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward), when more events are planned. With the official talks scheduled to end in mid-December, “February 29 is enough time to have a good cry, brush yourself off, and do something,” Klein said with a laugh.

Brandon King, a community organizer who came to Paris with a team from Jackson, Mississippi, to participate in events surrounding COP21, said he thought outside advocacy could both help push the formal agreement on issues such as reparations to climate change-affected communities, while mobilizing people for further fights ahead. The group, Cooperation Jackson, has been participating in street events such as the “human chain” that stretched through Paris’ streets in defiance of the demonstration ban, and has also sent an observer to the conference itself. “You can have an inside/outside strategy,” he said.

Klein seemed to agree. “My hopes for the COP were always more on the movement side, that this is a convergence space and a time when movements can come together and form alliances and be stronger going forward.” She plans to go to Le Bourget herself tomorrow. SOURCE


 

 

Michael Riordon: The TPP, a dirty deal

Tar sands 3
Tar sands: a former landscape in Alberta, Canada

By Michael Riordan, reposted from MichaelRiordon.com, Dec 3, 2015

In the previous post I mentioned the extreme dangers that secretly-negotiated, corporate-dictated international trade deals pose to our fragile planet, and our efforts to defend it.

A nightmarish example of such a deal is the prettily named Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), recently signed by – among other perpetrators – a representative of the former Northern Republican (aka Conservative) regime in Canada, just before they got the electoral boot.

Please note: The TPP is not a done deal for Canada until the newly constituted Parliament ratifies it. As of now, the Liberal majority looks alarmingly prepared to do so, but with enough public pressure, who knows what might happen…

Due to lack of time and space, I didn’t provide details on the actual dangers of the TPP to the earth and its inhabitants.

Well, here they are, in a new report just released: the dirty details of a very deadly deal.

Download (PDF, 1.99MB)

World leaders say carbon tax key to fight global warming

global-business-newspaper-investing

By AP, reposted from BenefitsCanada, Dec 2, 2015

One of the smartest ways to fight global warming is putting a price on carbon dioxide pollution, some key world leaders at the international climate summit say.

Either a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or trading carbon pollution like pork bellies, which puts a price on carbon, will help use capitalism to get closer to a day when the world isn’t adding heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, say leaders of France, Germany, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Ethiopia, as well as heads of the World Bank, IMF and OECD.

The number of countries, provinces, states or cities putting a price on carbon has tripled in the past year and is now at 40, including some U.S. states, says World Bank Group President Jim Young Kim. Kim and others pointed to straight carbon taxes in British Columbia, Sweden and France as examples of what works.

Economists have known since 1923 that “smart economics puts a tax on bad things and not on good things,” adds World Resources Institute President Andrew Steer, a former Wharton economist who wasn’t part of the multi-nation initiative on carbon pricing. He compares it to taxing cigarettes to reducing consumption, although other methods of trading carbon pollution credits aren’t quite the same.

New Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau notes British Columbia’s “world class” carbon tax proves such a device doesn’t harm the economy.

There are already costs — called externalities — to burning fossil fuels in terms of public health and deaths, costs that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, notes Wesleyan University economist Gary Yohe, who was not part of the Paris event.

“Cheap and dirty energy is not cheap for the planet or the health of our people,” Chilean President Michelle Bachelet says at the Paris climate summit. “When green taxes are incorporated into our climate policies, we can harness market forces that can lead to profound changes in our emissions patterns.”

Europe has carbon pricing and the key in the future is that that every nation has to have some kind of uniform carbon pricing, so that energy interests don’t go to another nation for dirty power, says German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Kim said carbon trading can work as well as a carbon tax, but OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said that a tax, even if it doesn’t raise new funds and replaces other taxes, clearly works best: “We should put a big fat price on (carbon) in order to penalize it.” SOURCE


 

 

Thirty Meter Telescope project dealt legal setback in Hawaii

Canadian industry, government heavily involved in project, which some Hawaiians have protested

Thirty Meter Telescope is constructing the telescope on land that is held sacred to some Native Hawaiians. Scientists say the location is ideal for the telescope, which could allow them to see into the earliest years of the universe.
Thirty Meter Telescope is constructing the telescope on land that is held sacred to some Native Hawaiians. Scientists say the location is ideal for the telescope, which could allow them to see into the earliest years of the universe. ((TMT Observatory Corp.))

By Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, The Associated Press, reposted from CBC News, Dec 3, 2015

A long-awaited Hawaii Supreme Court ruling Wednesday invalidating a construction permit for what would be one of the world’s largest telescopes represents a major setback for the $1.4 billion project on a mountain astronomers tout for having perfect star-gazing conditions.

The ruling is a victory for protesters who say they are fighting the project to curb development, preserve Native Hawaiian culture and protect the Big Island’s Mauna Kea, a mountain many consider sacred.

The court ruled that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources should not have issued a permit for the telescope before a hearings officer reviewed a petition by a group challenging the project’s approval.

“Quite simply, the board put the cart before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held,” the court’s 58-page opinion said. “Accordingly, the permit cannot stand.”

The ruling sends the matter back for a new contested case hearing.

“Today’s decision provides direction to a new land board and another opportunity for people to discuss Mauna Kea’s future,” state Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement. “The attorney general’s office will be advising the land board regarding next steps.”

Giant Telescope
In this April 2, 2015, file photo, Department of Land and Natural Resources officers arrest a Thirty Meter Telescope protester at the telescope building site on the summit of Mauna Kea in Hilo, Hawaii. (Hollyn Johnson/Hawaii Tribune-Herald via AP)

The project has been an international undertaking, involving the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy, University of California and the California Institute of Technology and partners from China, India and Japan.

Ottawa had already contributed $30 million to the project when it was announced by the Conservative government in the spring that $243.5 million over the next 10 years to create jobs in the telescope’s construction and assembly. That total included a $70 million grant to Dynamic Structures of Port Coquitlam, B.C., towards the construction of the telescope’s steel enclosure.

“We thank the Hawaii Supreme Court for the timely ruling and we respect their decision,” TMT International Observatory Board of Directors Chairman Henry Yang said in a statement. “TMT will follow the process set forth by the state, as we always have. We are assessing our next steps on the way forward.”

The target date for completing construction of the telescope had been 2023-24.

In 2013, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources issued a permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope, which allowed the project to proceed with construction on lands that are within the Mauna Kea conservation district. A group of opponents appealed, but a circuit court affirmed the land board’s decision.

Proponents say public notice was extensive

Attorneys for the state and the University of Hawaii, which manages the land, argue that the permit was approved after extensive public input.

The University of Hawaii Board of Regents unanimously approved the plan to build the telescope in 2010, which cleared the way for applying for the conservation permit. At that meeting, seven members of the public testified in favor of the telescope. No opponents spoke, though critics had been vocal about their arguments against the telescope.

While the permit appeal was before the Intermediate Court of Appeals, the opponents asked to bypass the court and have the case go directly to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The high court agreed to hear the case.

Kealoha Pisciotta, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the permit, said she hope the ruling leads to telescope officials dropping the project.

Opposition to the project became more vocal and visible when protesters blocked people from reaching an October 2014 groundbreaking ceremony. After that, the protests intensified.

Construction halted in April after 31 protesters were arrested for blocking construction. A second attempt to restart construction on June 24 ended with the arrests of 12 protesters and construction crews in vehicles retreating before reaching the site when they encountered large boulders in the road.

Protesters last month braced for another standoff when telescope officials said a crew would return for vehicle maintenance work sometime in November.

As protesters were gathering on Mauna Kea on Nov. 17, the state Supreme Court temporarily suspended the permit.

“I’m just very grateful to the heavens and the court and the people,” Pisciotta said. “The people took a stand and that’s significant. They did it without violence, peacefully. And that’s a blessing.”

With files from CBC News

SOURCE


RELATED:

Hawaii Supreme Court yanks permit for telescope on volcano

 

Act now to advance an honest conversation about climate change

Take Action Against Climate Deniers

By Devon Page, reposted from Ecojustice, Dec 3, 2015
With the Paris climate summit underway, Canada needs to have an honest conversation about climate change solutions.

We urgently need to transition to a clean energy future. But when climate change denier groups, such as Friends of Science, pollute the public square with falsehoods and junk science, they undermine our ability to have that conversation.

Their climate change denials are contrary to established scientific consensus. The confusion they sow makes low-carbon technologies less competitive and distorts capital investment toward high-carbon industries, risking a carbon bubble.

Take action now. Tell Canada’s Commissioner of Competition to investigate false and misleading representations made by denier groups in contravention of the Competition Act.

Attempts to discredit the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and driven by human activity undermine the public interest by forestalling the clean energy transition we need.

It’s time to talk about real solutions to this very real problem. To do this, we need your help to clear the air in the public square.

TAKE ACTION

COP21 Day 2: Paris News Wrap up

Image credit: AP

COP21 / Paris News Wrap-Up

Some of the great COP21 / Paris related news articles from Dec 2:

For the live blog from 350.org


from Lenore Taylor, political editor, Guardian Australia, Dec 3, 2015

I’m Guardian Australia’s political correspondent, in Paris to cover the climate talks with Guardian reporters from the UK and the United States.

On Day 2 most of the 150 world leaders who had spoken to the summit on Monday had gone home, the motorcades were thinning out and the grinding process of actually negotiating the agreement began.

US president Barack Obama was still around though and at a press conference he confirmed the US was happy for one critical part of the deal to be legally binding - the need for each country’s reduction target to be periodically reviewed.

The US can’t agree to the whole deal being legally binding because it would be virtually impossible to get it through the Republican-controlled Congress, but the president’s remarks are important because the targets now on the table would at best hold warming to 2.7C – which would still unleash catastrophic climate impacts on low-lying islands and poor countries. Regular reviews hold open the hope that countries do more over time.

Obama also met leaders of some of the low lying island states, recognising the extreme threat they face from global warming. I wrote about that meeting.

The Australian environment minister Greg Hunt was challenged about why he had approved a coal mega-mine proposed by Indian company Adani in Australia with a production so huge the coal mined would create annual emissions greater than New York City. He came up with a whole new “rationale” - that it wasn’t Australia’s mine and Australia wasn’t a “neo-colonialist” power telling poor countries what to do. Yesterday he downplayed suggestions that the developing countries would be able to amend the purpose of the agreement to keep global warming under 1.5C (a harder goal than the current 2C).

Negotiators are saying the initial talks are “bumpy” with deep disagreement over thousands of points. Their job is to hone down the 50-plus page document before handing the running of the talks to the French presidency on the weekend for the final, critical week.

Here’s my reading list from the last two days:

Yours Sincerely,
Lenore Taylor, political editor, Guardian Australia