Britain is falling behind on its target to cut greenhouse gas emission as lockdown eases, according to the government's statutory advisers on climate.
So Fiona Harvey's report begins, published on the front page of the Guardian, Thursday 25 June 2020, under the headline:UK at risk of bounce in carbon emissionsFor the Guardian webpage Fiona Harvey writes under the headline and subheading:
Act fast to stop UK carbon emission rebound, climate advisers urgeReport says Boris Johnson’s lack of climate leadership risks missing target and embarrassing UK at Cop26
Fiona Harvey writes:
Ministers must act fast if the UK is to avoid a massive rebound in carbon emissions after the coronavirus crisis eases, Lord Deben, chair of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which published its progress report to parliament on Thursday, said. By setting up new schemes to insulate homes, raise carbon taxes, switch to electric vehicles and improve broadband, the government could spur a green recovery to create jobs and cut emissions permanently.
The CCC found that the lack of clear leadership and direction from the prime minister was at the heart of the problem, just as the world was looking to the UK as host of the next UN climate summit.
Boris Johnson has chaired only one meeting of the cabinet committee on climate change since taking personal charge of the issue last October, with the government’s statutory advisers urging him to convene the group more often, as a matter of urgency, if the UK is to meet its 2050 net zero carbon target, which is off track.
Chris Stark, chief executive of the CCC said: “Without central and integrated leadership we will fail in our task, and this really does need the prime minister’s attention to make a success of it. It is a poor excuse that [the cabinet committee] has not met more often.”
Deben added: “We have to do this as rapidly as possible – this window of opportunity is closing clearly. What we do not want is a lot of good-hearted statements about beginning policies – what we need to do is seize the opportunity.”Delay in the government’s regulations for housebuilding had already resulted in 1 million new homes that were “not fit for purpose” because they had been built to old inefficient standards, he said. They would all have to be retrofitted for energy efficiency at extra cost.“That’s what happens if you don’t take these measures,” he said.The “central role” of the cabinet committee on climate change, which Johnson said last October would spearhead a cross-government push to bring down emissions, is mentioned 10 times in the CCC’s 196-page progress report to parliament, published on Thursday.
The cabinet committee’s one meeting, chaired by Johnson, was in March, the Guardian has established, and a second meeting is planned in the near future. Details are scant as the government has said it does not intend to report publicly on the committee meetings.“[It] will need to meet more regularly and demonstrate it is driving sustained progress,” the CCC report said.
Insiders told the Guardian that despite the government’s public commitment to net zero carbon emissions, the lack of leadership was severely hampering the UK’s ability to meet its carbon targets and its credibility as host of next year’s UN Cop26 climate summit.
“We are not being given a good lead by the prime minister and this is really undermining our ability to move things on,” said Tom Burke, co-founder of the environment thinktank E3G and a veteran government adviser. “What binds any institution, but especially the government, is leadership, and if you don’t get leadership, then people go off in different directions.”
He called for Johnson to take personal control. “The point of setting up a cabinet committee is to signal the importance of the issue for the government. If you don’t follow up that signal by using the device you created, you tell people you are more interested in the headline than in the outcome.”
Other recommendations in the CCC report include:
- A national plan to renovate buildings and construct new housing to the highest standards of energy and water efficiency.
- Bringing forward the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles from 2035 to 2032.
- Raising carbon taxes, including fuel duty, while oil prices are low, to bring in £15bn a year for spending on green measures.
The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by about 3.2% last year, but emissions must fall faster over the next 30 years to meet the target of net zero emissions by 2050.
The report sets out 29 milestones for the government to reach by 2030, as well as more than 130 detailed policy recommendations covering each government department. Ministers must respond to the report by 15 October.
A government spokesperson said: “We agree with the CCC that tackling climate change should be at the heart of our economic recovery. We were the first major economy to commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and want to ensure the UK has the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.”
Green campaigners called on ministers to act urgently, as the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, prepared a statement on the post-coronavirus economic rescue package for early next month. Rosie Rogers, head of green recovery at Greenpeace UK, said: “The likes of energy, efficiency, cycling and saving peatlands are essential, not nice-to-have measures. The CCC have shown the government where they need to put their money, and all eyes are now on the chancellor to make it happen.”
Making it happen . . .
For Re:LODE Radio this appears to be a crucial moment, six months in to 2020, a year that Re:LODE Radio chooses to headline as "THE YEAR OF TRUTH", following the warnings of leading climate scientists at the last COP 25 in Madrid in December 2019. The Science makes it clear that the urgency in the need for radical changes to business as usual cannot be underestimated, if the human race is to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate change, resulting in an unsustainable and uninhabitable planetary environment for everyday life.
For the Information Wraps around the LODE landscape, the places and the cargo produced along the LODE Zone Line it is also clear that the issue of global capitalism and its particular way of globalizing nature, life and culture, is the stumbling block to the necessary radical changes that human societies across the planet have to implement. The way things are will lead to disaster.
Societal characteristics and the distribution of power in society are part of what makes the stumbling block of the existing system of capitalism so difficult to shift. In this year, 2020 "THE YEAR OF TRUTH", the pandemic crisis has created a catalyst for a perceptual shift in many aspects of shared understandings of the present status quo, but it is also functioning as a huge distraction from the even greater threat posed in trying to;
get back to normal!
The Guardian is used extensively as a source of information and opinion for the Re:LODE Radio project. This is because of its agenda, as well as its investigative reporting, and free access to its digital platform, a welcome antidote to fake news, constructed debates and diversions, distractions from distraction, by distraction instigated by capitalist owned and culturally managed media platforms, and fronted by their well paid "pundit" commentariat.
Following Fiona Harvey's report referenced at the top of this post, and published on the front page of the Guardian, Thursday 25 June 2020, under the headline;
UK at risk of bounce in carbon emissions;
the Guardian editorial page published on Friday 26 June 2020 reflects the LODE meta-story and the LODE Zone Line, in related and particular information connected to the LODE Cargo of Questions, in two opinion pieces; in the print edition one is headlined; Environment, and the other; Poland.
In both cases these editorials raise the question of leadership, and the issue of leadership in a crisis seems to recur, ad nauseam, in the Re:LODE Radio posts for 2020 "THE YEAR OF TRUTH". However, the Re:LODE analysis would hazard the opinion that this is more a matter of leaders inclined to follow the already "established" pathways to maintain a status quo convenient to the survival of global capitalism. This includes securing the modern conditions of inequality, be they determined by class, race or gender.
The Guardian view on Covid-19 and climate: leadership required
The colossal challenge facing human civilisation, of ending our reliance on fossil fuels in short order, has almost certainly been made harder by the pandemic. Ever since scientists discovered that the Earth was warming as a result of human activity, it has been a struggle to get people, governments and businesses to do anything about it. Even in those countries least resistant to the evidence of rapidly approaching danger, something else was usually seen as more important. In the past few months, once again, the climate emergency has been knocked off the top of world leaders’ to-do list by the more immediate threat of the virus.
Recognising this, the environmental movement came up with the excellent idea of a green recovery. The annual report published on Thursday by the Committee on Climate Change, which provides official advice to the UK government, is a crucial, national component of that global effort. It sets out to tell Boris Johnson, his ministers and the British public how we can embed the lessons of Covid-19 in the next phase of carbon cuts.
There is some hopeful news, amid the destruction: because of the economic contraction caused by the pandemic, global emissions are expected to fall by 5-10% in 2020. In the UK, the switch to home-working has been far swifter and more dramatic than anything envisioned by climate policymakers. If this can be sustained post-pandemic, the reduction in transport emissions could be huge.
To what extent the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can be sustained, either domestically or internationally, will depend on the policies pursued. The committee identifies post-pandemic stimulus spending on high-carbon infrastructure as a threat. Changing attitudes to public transport due to the risk of infection is another. On the other hand, the kind of transformation that will be required if we are to become a zero-carbon world has arguably been made easier by the pandemic. Once people see how fragile and interconnected we really are, pressure for rapid decarbonisation could be expected to grow.
In the UK, the report identifies buildings and transport as key priorities, and has a raft of recommendations geared towards progress in these two areas. Regulations on housebuilding have been disgracefully lax, allowing 1 million new homes to be put up that already require retrofitting to meet energy standards (and allow owners and tenants to benefit from lower bills). Low-carbon heating must be pushed into a dominant position, and out of its current eco-specialist niche. On surface transport, which is now responsible for more emissions than any other sector in the UK (24% in 2019), the popularity of energy-intensive sports utility vehicles (SUVs) is one problem that leaps out. Their market share jumped from 6% in 2008 to 25% in 2019. The shift is mirrored in other countries.
Beyond such practical indications of where action is needed, and highlighting of inconsistencies in areas from agriculture to aviation, the report makes a case for “fairness as a core principle”. This applies domestically, and requires ministers to think about the differential impact of any changes – for example to energy taxes. But it also has global implications, and entails a new way of counting emissions that includes consumption as well as production.
Sound advice is one thing. The capacity to take it is another. Boris Johnson has only chaired one meeting of the cabinet committee on climate change set up last October. This fact on its own is dismal. But the opportunity remains. Next week he is expected to set out how the UK government will approach the recovery. Preparations for the postponed Cop26 climate talks are the ideal way to make this a global discussion. Can Mr Johnson show more effective leadership in the climate crisis than he has during the pandemic? For the UK in 2020 there are few more important questions.
Running scared of change . . .
On this same day (Fri 26 Jun 2020), and in the wake of the CCC report, covered by Fiona Harvey's report at the top of this post, Matthew Taylor reports for the Guardian on the view of a leading climate scientist, Kevin Anderson.
Matthew Taylor reports for the Guardian (Fri 26 Jun 2020) under the headline and subheading:
Government climate advisers running scared of change, says leading scientist
Rapid transformation needed, Kevin Anderson says, particularly in lifestyles of rich
Kevin Anderson, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, had a familiar reaction to the latest report from the government’s climate advisers, which was published this week.
The 196-page document by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) delivered a stinging rebuke of the government’s record and said ministers must urgently up their game if the UK is to avoid a significant rebound in carbon emissions after the coronavirus crisis and meet its 2050 net zero carbon target.
Anderson is a professor of energy and climate change, working across the universities of Manchester, Uppsala in Sweden and Bergen in Norway. He said: “The constructive, meticulous criticism of the government, which is failing abysmally by any measure, is fine. The problem is the framing the CCC has for net zero is already far removed from what is needed to meet our Paris commitments.”
Anderson’s latest research argues the UK’s planned reductions in emissions, even if it hits net zero by 2050, would be two or three times greater than its fair share of emissions under the landmark 2015 Paris agreement, where countries agreed to hold global increases in temperature to “well below 2C and to pursue 1.5C”.
“Academics have done an excellent job in understanding and communicating climate science, but the same cannot be said in relation to reducing emissions,” said Anderson. “Here we have collectively denied the necessary scale of mitigation, running scared of calling for fundamental changes to both our energy system and the lifestyles of high-energy users. Our paper brings this failure into sharp focus.”
Shortly after the study was published, Anderson posted a warning on Twitter about what he described as a cosy consensus between senior academics, journalists and government scientists, who were unwilling to publicly acknowledge the urgent system-level transformation required to tackle the climate crisis.
He said: “Many senior academics, senior policymakers, basically the great and good of the climate world have decided that it is unhelpful to rock the status quo boat and therefore choose to work within that political paradigm – they’ll push it as hard as they think it can go, but they repeatedly step back from questioning the paradigm itself.”
Anderson, who travels between his three universities by “long, slow train” and last took an airline flight in 2004, says that such “mitigation denial” stems from the “fundamental failure” of the academic community to be honest about the implications of its research. This had potentially devastating consequences for the future, he said.
“Our job as academics is to be disinterested in whether policymakers like or dislike our conclusions. We should only be concerned [with] whether they agree or disagree with our findings – and why,” he said.
“On mitigation, the academic community and the CCC have collectively failed the political realm and civil society by tailoring our conclusions to fit with what we judge to be politically palatable – all at the expense of scientific integrity.”
Chris Stark, chief executive of the CCC, defended the logic behind its 2050 target, which he said was based on “detailed considerations of the climate science, based on the IPCC’s work, the international context, including the Paris agreement and ‘equity’ considerations, and the feasible speed and cost at which UK emissions can be reduced”.
Stark added: “Our recommendations reflect a consideration of all of these issues and are designed to best support the required increase in global effort. It continues to be the CCC’s view that this is the right target for the UK, but we welcome new evidence and we will review new studies as we develop our advice on the sixth carbon budget for the end of this year.”
However, Anderson said too many models for tackling climate change relied on “unproven technologies far in the future”, such as carbon capture and storage. “Perhaps we’ll be lucky and they will work at huge planetary scale – but it’s one hell of a gamble.”
He said the models also ignored the fact that it was the lifestyles of a relatively wealthy few that gave rise to the lion’s share of emissions.
“Globally the wealthiest 10% are responsible for half of all emissions, the wealthiest 20% for 70% of emissions. If regulations forced the top 10% to cut their emissions to the level of the average EU citizen, and the other 90% made no change in their lifestyles, that would still cut total emissions by a third.
“If we were serious about this crisis we could do this in a year – if we were really serious we could do it in a month, but we are not and our emissions just keep rising.”
In his latest report, published in the journal Climate Policy last month, Anderson and his colleagues argued that after “30 years of failure” to control growing emissions, a fundamental reframing was required.
But he insisted that this did not mean a complete upheaval in how most people lived their lives, even in the UK.
“Yes, some changes will be needed, but for the majority of people the solutions to this crisis will also improve their lives: long-term job prospects for them and their children, better house quality, better access and more affordable public transport.”
However, for wealthy high emitters it would mean fundamental change.
“The very wealthy amongst us, senior academics and professors included, will have to make profound changes to our high-emitting lifestyles. We recycle and often live in relatively efficient homes, but they’re typically big homes and sometimes we have two or more of them.
“Many of us are frequent flyers, we drive long distances in big cars, buy a lot equipment, have fridge-freezers the size of a small terrace house – every facet of our lives, although normalised by us, is central to our nation’s high emissions. But the models are unwilling to accept this – preferring to pass the buck on to our children in the form of future technical silver bullets.”
Anderson said that the UK’s use of energy should be zero-carbon by 2035 rather than net zero by 2050 – a move that would “require a fundamental re-evaluation of economic assumptions around growth value and progress”.
He said the scale and timeframe of transformation required would be bigger than that of Roosevelt’s New Deal or the Marshall plan to reconstruct Europe after the second world war.
“Many say that such rapid and deep change is unrealistic – but it’s much more realistic than believing a fair and progressive society can survive with 3, 4 or even 5C of warming,” he said.
Q. So, where are the Green New Deals?
A. At the moment they are brilliant but only Utopian (as in No-place) plans and promises!
These two pre-Covid-19 pandemic videos set out the challenge and the first steps to a solution to irreversible climate change. Vox looks at the New Green Deal proposal in the US, and Rebecca Long-Bailey is interviewed on the motions passed at the Labour Party Conference in 2019 for a New Green Deal and a Green Industrial Revolution. She says; "capitalism has to change, fundamentally!"
Capitalism has to change! Fundamentally!
On the same day that the Guardian published the two stories on the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report, referenced above in this post, it was reported that the architect of the UK Labour Party's Green New Deal was sacked from the shadow cabinet.
Peter Walker, Heather Stewart and Severin Carrell report for the Guardian on this swift decision by Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader (Thu 25 Jun 2020). They write:
Keir Starmer is facing a showdown with the left of Labour after his decisive sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey reignited the party’s internal turmoil over the issue of antisemitism.
In a swift move, Long-Bailey was summarily dismissed as shadow education secretary for sending an approving tweet about an interview in which the actor Maxine Peake said the US police tactic of kneeling on someone’s neck was taught by the Israeli secret service.
This was emphatically denied by Israel, and Peake later retracted the claim. By then, however, Long-Bailey had been fired.
Her approval of the interview, in which Peake also talked about her new film and her support for Jeremy Corbyn, led Jewish groups to demand she delete her tweet and apologise. Instead she sent another message saying she did not endorse “all aspects of the article”.
Less than three hours later, a brief statement from Starmer’s office said he had asked Long-Bailey to step down.
It said: “The article Rebecca shared earlier today contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory. As leader of the Labour party, Keir has been clear that restoring trust with the Jewish community is a number one priority. Antisemitism takes many different forms and it is important that we all are vigilant against it.”
In an online press briefing with reporters, Starmer went further. “I asked Rebecca Long-Bailey to step down from the shadow cabinet for sharing the article,” he said. “I didn’t do that because she is antisemitic, I did it because she shared the article which has got, in my view, antisemitic conspiracy theories in it.“My primary focus is on rebuilding trust with the Jewish communities. I didn’t think sharing that article was in keeping with that primary objective.”
Conspiracy theory or NOT conspiracy theory?
Predictable conjecture that Long-Bailey's tweet of approval was a pretext for high level political manoeuvring by the Labour leadership was taken up by the Tribune. Tribune is a democratic socialist political magazine founded in 1937 and published in London, initially as a newspaper then converting to a magazine in 2001. While it is independent, it has usually supported the Labour Party from the left. From 2008 to 2018, it faced serious financial difficulties until it was purchased by the New York based American socialist quarterly magazine Jacobin, in late 2018.
How Keir Starmer Sabotaged Rebecca Long-Bailey
This article by Ronan Burtenshaw was published 26.06.2020. He introduces his article thus:
From her earliest days as shadow education secretary, Keir Starmer set about undermining Rebecca Long-Bailey – because her socialist politics and loyalty to trade unions were incompatible with his leadership.
Keir Starmer never intended for Rebecca Long-Bailey to play a prominent role in his shadow cabinet. Her 135,000 votes in the leadership election meant she couldn’t be excluded from high office entirely – not, at least, after a campaign in which he had promised to stick by Corbyn’s policies and preached a message of unity. But nor was she going to be allowed to continue her work on Labour’s Green New Deal. The Great Offices of State were clearly out of the question.
The Labour motion for a Green New Deal explained:
The Green New Deal is a radical vision for transforming our economy rooted in the recognition that climate change is fundamentally a class issue, and a product of our broken economic system. It is a plan that recognises that economic, social and climate justice are indissoluble. That’s why our Motion goes beyond just the demand for rapid decarbonisation.
The Green New Deal calls for 9 concrete, radical changes to our current economic, social and political model. But the Green New Deal is more than just a series of demands.
The following documents can be accessed at the Labour for a Green New Deal webpage.
A commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2030
Labour for a Green New Deal has a bold and simple policy with respect to decarbonising our economy and society: zero carbon by 2030. But why 2030? Why zero carbon? And what does ‘zero carbon’ really mean?
Rapidly phasing out all fossil fuels
The climate crisis calls for urgent decarbonisation, tackling our true carbon footprint and all sectors of the economy. We must move beyond limited progress, failed Government policy and new fossil fuel technologies.
Large-scale investment in renewables
A Green New Deal means affordable, green, truly renewables energy produced sustainably in partnership with the international community. It means moving from modest recent progress to a highly ambitious programme – with community energy at its heart.
A just transition to well-paid, unionised green jobs
Our green future and the enormous transformation it requires must be realised with better work and a fairer society: this means well-paid, unionised, green jobs available for all who want them.
Expanding public, democratic ownership
Our zero-carbon future will be in the hands of the many. New forms of public and community ownership - invigorating the commons - will displace concentrated private gains, value extraction and profit maximisation.
Green public, integrated transport
We propose a whole new system of transport, that jointly tackles issues of inequality, public health and the climate crisis. This means green bus networks integrated with high speed rail. This means freeing our streets for shared luxury. This means investment in every part of the UK to meet local needs.
Supporting developing countries' climate transitions
We cannot and should strive for a Green New Deal in isolation. We propose an internationalist movement that embraces solidarity, equity and justice through new models for finance, trade and governance.
Assuring everyone's basic rights through the provision of universal services
The Green New Deal is more than just a plan for decarbonising our existing economy; rather, it is a strategy for building a new socialist economy, run by and for the many.
Welcoming climate refugees and preventing displacement
The climate crisis is a global crisis, but those who have done the least to bring it about are already disproportionately suffering the consequences. The injustices of British colonialism alongside the UK’s disproportionate contribution to emissions mean that we must welcome climate refugees and take radical actions to prevent displacement.
The bigger picture
These nine documents lay out the justification for each element of the Green New Deal and, crucially, why each one is an equally essential pillar of a transformative plan for tackling the climate crisis by building a prosperous, socialist, and zero-carbon society.
Why the Green New Deal didn't get a hearing
At the beginning of 2020 "THE YEAR OF TRUTH" Jacobin published this analysis by Adrienne Buller of why Labour's plan for a Green Industrial Revolution dropped off the election agenda in December 2019.
This article by Adrienne Buller was published at the beginning of this year (01.12.2020) by Jacobin, and raises an important question and backed up by some answers that point directly to where we find ourselves now, six months on in 2020.
Why the Green New Deal Didn’t Get a Hearing
Labour’s plan for a Green Industrial Revolution promised to put climate crisis at the heart of Britain’s general election. But the need for radical solutions soon dropped off the agenda — allowing the defining issue of our time to be once again ignored.
Adrienne Buller begins her article reflecting on the state of things in the first weeks of 2020. For a reminder of how things were Pre-Covid-19 please go to the first posts this year:Wednesday, 1 January 2020
Wednesday, 8 January 2020
Adrienne Buller writes:
An area the size of Scotland burns in Australia. More than sixty lives have been lost to flooding in Jakarta; Zambia teeters on the brink of famine; and oil stocks soar as the president of the United States openly stokes war with Iran. A Green New Deal (GND) — and an internationalist GND in particular — is more urgent than ever. But at the same moment, its advocates are still reeling from a devastating defeat in an election that saw the GND’s first trial in a national electoral contest.
In the wake of the Labour Party’s decisive loss in December, the GND’s proponents have had to grapple with the thought that the GND may have failed its first test at the polls. And if, indeed, it did fail, what now? Where next, as we look ahead to the possibility of further thwarted negotiations at the UN’s COP26 Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, five years under an unimpeded Tory majority, and the 2020 US elections?
Since the publication of this article COP26 has been postponed until 2021, because of the Coronavirus pandemic, so Adrienne Buller's warning, at the beginning of the year, of possible further thwarted negotiations, is compounded by British government politicians tending to become distracted from convenient distraction by further convenient distractions. It is very likely that Covid-19 is going to be used as the ultimate convenient distraction, unless public opinion shifts dramatically in the current pandemic crisis, to address HOW to re-build the economy and society from NOW! Adrienne Buller writes:
Perhaps most important is that the GIR was not the GND. Though the terms were used interchangeably by activists and politicians alike following the passing of the Green New Deal motion at the Labour Party’s autumn conference, this obscured the essential differences of the two programs. The GIR offered a suite of innovative, well-designed policies for reindustrializing the economy, creating green jobs through projects such as the retrofitting of the UK’s housing stock, electric vehicle manufacturing, and the construction of municipally owned wind farms.
It did not, however, offer a cohesive vision for economic transformation by explicitly naming the roots of the problems it confronted, such as the structural bases of wealth inequality in the UK, or a financial system predicated on stoking both the fossil fuel industry and the housing crisis. This omission left Labour unable to sell the story of an entirely new economic consensus or identify how its practical policies — municipally owned energy projects, community car clubs, “Warm Homes for All” — would help confront these more fundamental ills.
Yet this is precisely the innovation of the GND, in carefully linking discrete policy interventions into a single project which names its foes and provides the plans for vanquishing them. The GND did not, therefore, genuinely stand trial in this election — a failure that offers insights into the necessary priorities for the climate movement going forward.
Adrienne Buller ends her article with a call for an internationalist vision, and effort, as being the only practical means to securing New Green Deal objectives. She writes:
By naming globalized financial capitalism as the root of climate and economic crises, the GND is thus necessarily internationalist. And for this particular project, the coming years offer significant opportunities and challenges: post-Brexit trade negotiations, the convening of COP26 in Glasgow, and a newly appointed governor of the Bank of England, to name a few. The fight to embed the GND in these institutions is a daunting but essential task, with potentially transformative ramifications. Success will require pressure and leadership from a united front of activists, unions, think tanks, and a strong opposition Labour Party.
This is why the GND — and an internationalist GND in particular — remains the essential frame for climate justice going forward. The movement suffered a setback in Britain’s general election, but the GND was never just a national project. Though highly important, national politics are just one vehicle in its realization, and the GND can no more be confined to parliamentary policy than climate breakdown can be contained by national borders.
The GND remains the only approach to the climate crisis which not only offers solutions to discrete problems, but which identifies these problems at their shared root. It is also the only approach whose ambition matches the scale of the existential challenge at hand. Crucially, it has yet to be established as a cohesive policy platform; instead, the GND has been a vision for systemic change based on the recognition of the shared basis of the problems we face in an exhausted economic model. Thus far, this ambiguity has been both an asset and a hindrance. Going forward, the success of the Green New Deal will hinge on doing the work of turning this vision into a lived reality in every sphere of political life.
Climate Action Tracker
The UK is currently projected not to achieve its own medium-term climate targets, with government projections showing it will not achieve the emission reductions required to comply with its fourth (2023-2027) and fifth (2028-2032) carbon budgets.
The significant progress made in the decade since the passage of the UK’s landmark Climate Change Act legislation is expected to stall in the 2020s, vividly demonstrated by the only slight deviation of the planned policy emissions trajectory, from that representing current policies in the graph above.
There has been a dearth of new significant climate policies announced in recent years which, if left unaddressed, will leave the UK missing its medium and long-term emission targets. The government must ratchet up its climate policies now to ensure the necessary rapid emission reductions over the following decade.
In the ten years since the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have fallen by 28% and it has provided the foundation for the coordination and advancement of climate action in the UK, including a projected phasing out of coal fired power plants by 2023. The legislation was updated in 2019 to include a net-zero 2050 emissions target, with the UK becoming the first major economy in the world to legislate such a target.
The UK’s five-year carbon budgets, formulated under the original Climate Change Act legislation were originally set in order to comply with the previous 2050 goal of an 80% reduction below 1990 levels. This means the UK’s climate policies will need to be strengthened significantly to ensure the UK meets its long-term net-zero target. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) did not recommended changes to these budgets, but rather that the government overachieve them. However, the Committee did note it would reconsider whether legislative changes would be necessary to strengthen the fourth and fifth carbon budgets when it delivers its advice on the sixth budget period (2033-2037) in 2020.
The CCC has asserted that net-zero emissions by 2050 constitutes the UK’s ‘highest possible ambition’. It states that Scotland should set a net-zero GHG target of 2045, and that Wales should set a 95% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 to reflect their respective circumstances. In a review of what will be required to reach the net-zero target, the CCC highlighted the lack of a plan for decarbonising UK heating systems, the lack of progress in developing carbon capture and storage capability, the failure to meet afforestation targets, and that the current 2040 target for banning fossil fuel vehicles is too late.
With a general election scheduled for December 2019, the UK has a chance to decide whether it will match the urgency conveyed by parliament’s declaration of a climate emergency in May 2019 with more ambitious climate policies.
The UK Labour Party has pledged £250 billion to drive its plans for a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’, while recently committing to a 2030 phase out of fossil fuel vehicle sales and £3.6bn for a national charging network. These policies alone would make the UK a climate frontrunner with no other major developed country yet committing to such ambitious actions.
This is in contrast to the Conservative Party which has announced only a limited number of climate-related policies in their election manifesto, including £9.2 billion for improving the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals and homes, and a brought-forward ban on gas-boilers in all new homes from 2020. An announced ban on fracking was subsequently criticised for not being permanent. Many other parties, including the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, and the Greens, have made action on climate change a high priority in their election campaigns.
As a result of sustained political pressure from the activist group Extinction Rebellion, the UK Parliament decided to establish a ‘citizen’s assembly’ on climate change. This group of 110 citizens representative of the general population will meet over four weekends in early 2020 to discuss what policies they would like to see implemented to reach the UK’s net-zero 2050 emissions target.
Although the UK is set to leave the EU by early 2020, it has committed to continue working with the EU, aligning and, where possible, going beyond the EU’s climate and energy ambitions. The UK’s current targets are more ambitious than what was required under the EU effort sharing legislation, so there is no expectation of a weakening of climate policy ambition as a result of leaving the EU.
The government’s current 2030 target of a 57% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels is rated as ‘Insufficient’, for limiting warming to below 1.5°C. Under the EU’s effort sharing regulation, the UK is expected to reduce GHG emissions that are not covered by the EU emissions trading scheme by 37% below 2005 levels by 2030.
This brings today's post back to the question of leadership in an international context, where populist politicians are making the running, and leaving the progressive LEFT in disarray.
Reactionary, conservative politics, the politics of denial, the politics of narcissism, these politics are a way for already existing power to maintain that power, to keep things the way they are:
business as usual!
When it comes to questions of leadership, the Guardian editorial that accompanied the critique of Boris Johnson's leadership on the challenge of tackling climate change considered the disgracefully homophobic campaign of Andrzej Duda in the presidential election.
This Editorial was published in Guardian on Thursday 25 June 2020:
The Guardian view on Poland's election: pride versus prejudice
A disgracefully homophobic campaign may have backfired on President Andrzej Duda
Last week, in Poland’s presidential palace, the incumbent head of state, Andrzej Duda, was presented with a set of grim photographic portraits. The images were of Polish LGBT teenagers who had recently taken their own lives. The activist who presented President Duda with the images said after the meeting: “I told him I hope he will see these kids in his nightmares.”
The tone of bitter exasperation was understandable. In the lead-up to Poland’s delayed presidential election this Sunday, the disgraceful drumbeat of homophobia in Mr Duda’s bid for re-election has been unrelenting and shameful. During a televised debate on LGBT issues, an MP from the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) and member of the president’s campaign team told viewers: “Let’s stop listening to these idiocies about human rights. These people are not equal with normal people.” The president himself has pledged to “defend children from LGBT ideology”, an alleged worldview that he compared to communism in its power to destroy Polish values.
With wearying predictability, Poland’s populist right tends to ramp up its culture wars when election time comes around. Muslim migrants have previously found themselves depicted by PiS as the enemy within. The rhetoric is cynical and manipulative, intended to mobilise a deeply conservative, mostly rural base. But the licence given in recent years to extreme prejudice has steadily changed the reality of LGBT lives on the ground. Around eighty municipal and local governments, covering great swaths of Polish territory, have declared themselves “free from LGBT ideology”. Pride marches have been attacked and banned. The 48-year-old Mr Duda, a devout Catholic, has promised to ban LGBT education in schools and refused to allow same-sex marriage.
As election day nears, however, there are heartening signs that the old polarising playbook may be misfiring. During the country’s Covid-19 lockdown, when Mr Duda was well ahead in the polls, the government unsuccessfully tried to rush the poll through by postal vote. But the subsequent entry into the race of Warsaw’s liberal mayor, Rafał Trzaskowski, has spooked the president’s team. Despite relentless attacks from state media, it seems that Mr Trzaskowski may do well enough to force a second round run-off on 12 July. At that point, polls suggest, opposition supporters would unite and all bets would be off.
Unexpectedly then, Europe’s first major election since the Covid-19 pandemic struck could prove a turning point. Poland has become a civil rights outlier in the EU, but a defeat for Mr Duda would be the most serious reverse for the populist right since he became president in 2015. The presidency’s veto powers would allow Mr Trzaskowski to block PiS’s legislative agenda, including controversial judicial reforms.
Mr Duda will hope that praise and support from Donald Trump, during a visit to Washington this week, will consolidate mainstream support in a fiercely pro-American country. But eyeing the narrowing polls, some of Mr Duda’s supporters fear that, for once, aggressive and divisive rhetoric against minorities may have backfired. For Poland’s shamefully ostracised LGBT community, that would be a cause for celebration and relief.
The Information Wrap for the LODE Cargo in the Re:LODE Cargo of Questions blog for Szczecin in Poland has an article on some of the background to this present situation:
Identity Politics in Poland
Poland's climate neutrality pledge - delayed again?
Polish PM Mateusz Morawiecki (right), at a pre-coronavirus summit. 'Lack of commitment from Poland is definitely a factor that weakens EU credibility on the international climate policy arena,' said climate expert Urszula Stefanowicz
This article is by Elena Sánchez Nicolás, writing for the euobserver, Brussels, 19. Jun, 2020:
Last December, EU leaders reached agreement on achieving climate-neutrality by 2050 - but granted Poland an exemption, with a commitment that Warsaw return to the issue at the summit in June 2020.
However, the public health crisis and the economic crisis triggered by the coronavirus has postponed this discussion - and further complicated matters.
"Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, discussions on climate issues have been postponed - but Poland continues to act to reach its climate objectives and modernise its energy system," Polish government sources told EUobserver on Thursday (18 June).
However, civil society organisations said that lack of commitment of one member state might pose a risk to the whole EU's credibility - especially in international discussions where the EU aims to lead global action.
"Lack of commitment from Poland is a factor that weakens EU credibility on the international climate policy arena," said Urszula Stefanowicz, a climate expert from the NGO Polish Ecological Club Mazovian Branch.
Moreover, the fact that the EU is still considering financing with taxpayers money fossil fuels is equally damaging for the EU credibility, according to most environmental activists.
Polish mine jobs
During the Covid-19 pandemic and related lockdown, the government closed mines, leaving many people without a job - which has now placed the Polish government in a tough situation ahead of the national elections.
Back then, some experts and politicians argued that the decision was taken too late to control the spread of the disease, while others said it was unnecessary entirely.
This is why Stefanowicz argues that Poland is unlikely to make any public declarations in this week's summit.
"For the government, it is not the time to say that Poland will have to speed up the process of closing mines as a result of accepting EU policies, which they had previously called overly-restrictive and dangerous for the Polish job market," she said.
"The only way to push the Polish government is through additional finance," she added.
Timmermans threat
The European Commission's proposal for the recovery increases five-fold the resources of the Just Transition Fund, which aims to support fossil fuel-dependent regions - bringing the total to €40bn.
Poland would receive the largest funding-slice of this money, and the country's coal-dependent regions could receive about €8bn, according to Poland's climate minister Michal Kurtyka.
However, the commissioner in charge of the Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, warned last month that the allocation of EU funds might be anchored to certain criteria - such as the commitment to the Green Deal targets.
"If a country does not commit to the EU's 2030 or 2050 targets, there should be consequences for the allocations as well," he said.
According to Polish EU sources, Warsaw will contribute to achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050, despite the lack of 'official commitment'.
"Poland is mobilising enormous investments to do it and at the same time is taking into consideration the needs of the most vulnerable social groups. That is why we do not see any need to implement any conditions to the Just Transition Fund," they said.
"A just transition cannot be based on conditionality but inclusiveness," they added
Meanwhile, informal talks linked to climate policy are already taking place - although the 2050 climate-neutrality target is not as relevant as increasing the target for 2030.
The mayors of Warsaw, Budapest, Prague and Bratislava recently called on the European Union to set a more ambitious emissions reduction target for 2030.
The heads of the four capitals sent a letter on Wednesday to the European Council president Charles Michel and EU leaders urging to boost the current 40 percent emission reduction target to 55 percent by 2030 (compared with 1990 levels).
"The joint crises of the coronavirus and global warming creates an unprecedented test of concerted action for the EU," reads the letter, which comes ahead of the EU summit on Friday (19 June) in which EU leaders will discuss the EU's recovery plan and long-term budget.
"We have great hopes and expectations for the recovery plans. However, these recovery measures must not lose sight of the escalating climate crisis, a challenge even greater than the coronavirus," the mayors added.
Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, who is a member of Poland's biggest opposition party, Civic Platform, is running for the presidential election set for 28 June.
Later this year, the commission will present an impact assessment to increase the emission reduction target to at least 50 percent and towards 55 percent.
Open letter to the President and to the members of the European Council by the mayors of the Visegrad Group capitals
Another story from this past week, covered by the euobserver at the end of the month of June 2020, looks at the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the climate crisis response of Poland's western neighbour, Germany, in its current role as the EU presidency.
This article by Jess Smee,
Berlin, 30. Jun, who also writes for the Guardian and is an editor of SGI News and the Bertelsmann Stiftung's BTI blog. She writes:
Expectations for climate protection were heaped onto 2020. The Paris Climate Convention means that Germany and its fellow signatories must sign up for higher climate targets before the year end.
The EU's Green Deal, a package of pro-climate measures, is on the drawing board.
Against this backdrop, there were hopes that the Germany's rotating council presidency would turn into a "climate presidency".
But national and international priorities have been upended by the coronavirus pandemic, which ushered in an inevitable focus on healthcare and bids to insulate economies from sharp recession.
There has been a clear shift in sentiment. Even in late April in her weekly video podcast, chancellor Angela Merkel, acknowledged that the German EU presidency would focus on dealing with the social and economic impact of the new coronavirus as well as environmental issues, but admitted: "It will be clearly dominated by the issue of combating the pandemic and its consequences".
First cracks
And there were already signs of cracks in Germany's once strong reputation for climate protection.
The Bertelsmann Stiftung's Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) 2019 survey on Germany described the nation as "a driving force in international climate policy," but cautioned that "Germany's reputation as a global leader in environmental policies has taken some damage since the German government had to admit that it will fail to realise its emission reduction targets for 2020".
Those long written off targets are now likely to be struck as the pandemic has triggered a sudden unforeseen global slump in emissions, more than during any previous economic crisis or period of war.
However, this improvement is likely to be a one-off blip in the absence of any policy moves to boost climate protection.
Even on a national level, Germany - Europe's biggest CO2 polluter - has failed to progress on climate issues. For example, it was six months late in submitting its national climate plan, already due at the end of 2019, a setback in the bloc's progress on climate.
Against a COVID-19 backdrop, there has been increasing support among German politicians, business and non-governmental organisations for the idea of linking economic incentives to climate protection.
In late May, the European Commission proposed a €750bn recovery package which it said underscores its commitment to the Green Deal.
According to its proposal, a quarter of all funding would be channeled into climate-friendly sectors such as renewable energies, electric mobility and renovating buildings.
Meanwhile, a "do no harm" principle would apply across the EU budget, while the funds would not be directed towards fossil fuels and nuclear.
During Germany's presidency of the European Commission, it will first be possible to gauge the success of such measures.
Critics have already voiced some doubts, arguing that in the absence of a detailed spending plan, its environmental impact will hinge on how member states react.
After all, member governments will have to apply for EU recovery funds and their plans will be vetted by Brussels and the other 26 EU member states.
But restoring some of the flagging confidence in Germany's environmental commitments, in recent weeks Germany has earned some applause from environmental campaigners.
Earlier this month a national hydrogen strategy, was unveiled - reflecting German ambition for a global leadership role in the industry which is touted as a way of slashing stubborn industrial CO2 emissions.
By opting for a controversial focus on hydrogen made with renewable energies, the government offered additional support to its energy transition process.
Among other developments, Germany has recently managed to remove some brakes on its renewable sector: the country's limit on solar energy expansion has been lifted, and a protracted spat over the minimum distance between wind turbines and residential areas was brought to an end.
Germany has also approved a stimulus package worth €130bn, containing a number of measures designed to constrain its carbon emissions.
'Pale Green'
Some pundits were critical, including the environmental group Greenpeace, which dubbed it as "pale green" at best.
However, it won plaudits for snubbing the nationally influential car lobby, favouring e-transport rather than succumbing to industry calls for fresh subsidies for traditional cars.
Despite these glimmers of hope, there remain precious few clues on the detail of what is in store during the upcoming German leadership.
Climate-minded observers bemoaned the lack of specifics during this year's Petersberg Climate Dialogue – an annual meeting which includes about 30 environment ministers from around the world.
This year it was particularly closely watched as the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow at the end of the year has been cancelled amid COVID-19.
Speaking at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, Merkel notably did not talk about the presidency at all, instead she talked in general terms about the Green Deal but she did endorse the commission's proposal to raise the EU's 2030 emissions reduction target from 40 percent, to 50-55 percent.
Kai Niebert, an environmental scientist and president of Deutsche Naturschutzring (DNR), an environmental umbrella organisation, called Merkel's support for the higher goal "an important step in the right direction in these difficult times," but added, "Germany must now put its words into practice and use its forthcoming EU Presidency seriously to actively promote the implementation of the European Green Deal".
In the context of its European peers, Germany continues to perform fairly strongly in terms of its environmental policy in the SGI ranking, scoring 7.2 out of a possible 10 points for 2019, compared to an average European score of 6.4.
But this slight lead may come under pressure in 2020 as Germany's climate ambitions are tempered by the outbreak of a pandemic.
The international emergency has disrupted national and European decision making but it also teaches a valuable lesson, according to Niebert.
"The corona pandemic shows how unprepared we are for such a global shock," he said. "The only logical response to the current health and economic crisis can therefore only be more climate protection, not less, so that we do not slip from one crisis to the next."
As the countdown to the German presidency picks up speed, it is clear that not all member nations are fans of pro-climate policies.
Amid the urgent need to react to the pandemic, a Polish government official has spoken out in favour of removing the EU emissions trading scheme while the Czech prime minister Andrej Babis has urged for the European Green Deal to be shelved.
This suggests a double challenge during Germany's stint at the top, beyond the all-encompassing issue of COVID-19.
Not only does Germany need to put action behind its promises for environmental protection, but it will also face staunch opposition to climate protection measures.
As in Poland, German extremists exploit rural nostalgia and anger at globalisation
Philip Oltermann in Berlin, reporting for the Observer (Sun 28 Jun 2020), writes under the headline and subheading:
German far right infiltrates green groups with call to protect the land
Extremists exploit rural nostalgia and farmers’ anger at globalisation to smuggle in ideology
The poster advertising the evening of debate and organic canapés in Halle’s university district looked familiar to environmentally conscious Germans: a rugged pair of hands, cupping fertile brown soil, underneath the slogan “Farms instead of agricultural factories”, written in a font mimicking that of a popular biodynamic food brand.
The only hint the event wasn’t organised by sandal-wearing good-lifers but a local group of far-right nationalists was in the subtitle: “Let’s chase the globalists off our acres!”
Farmers associations and environmental groups in Germany are increasingly warning of a new strategy pursued with increasing transparency by the country’s new right: to use the enduring popularity of organic lifestyles and a burgeoning green movement as a step into the mainstream.
One harbinger of this is a new quarterly glossy magazine Die Kehre (The Turning), published this month, which describes itself as a “magazine for natural protection”. It draws its title from the writings of anti-modernist philosopher Martin Heidegger and tries to reclaim environmental concern as a reactionary cause.
In its editorial, the magazine describes ecology as the “crown jewels” of the right “robbed” by the leftwing green movement in the 1970s, and argues for redefining the subject away from Klimaschutz (climate protection) towards Heimatschutz (homeland protection). Several articles warn of the danger to Germany’s “native” bird species and “fairytale forests” posed by windfarms.
Another column cites a manifesto by far-right thinktank Recherche Dresden, “Seven theses for a conservative-ecological turn”, written in the wake of the German Green party’s triumph at the 2019 European elections: “The world’s population has to be stabilised at a lower level – otherwise we face irreversible ecological collapse.”
If the magazine’s political messages are at times deliberately covert, the leanings of its supporters are less so: one of its most prominent champions on social media is Björn Höcke, the Thuringian leader of far-right party Alternative für Deutschland’s aggressively nationalist wing – a German court last year ruled he could legally be called a fascist.
The magazine is edited by a member of the Identitarian movement, a group of nationalist activists that Germany’s domestic intelligence agency last year declared an extremist entity, and which also hosted the information evening about permaculture and sustainable farming in Halle at the start of last year. That event was not an isolated instance: a survey carried out among German natural protection NGOs found this month that 42% of respondents had in their work come across people with rightwing extremist views.
“We discovered a significant number of environmental groups who had contact with far-right ideologues,” said Daniela Gottschlich, one of the political scientists who conducted the survey for the Diversu thinktank. “We discovered many felt unable to cope with the challenge and ask for support.” As such, attempts to use green issues to smuggle far-right ideas into respectable society are not new, said Yannick Passeick, a spokesperson for Farn, a government-sponsored body against radicalisation among environmentalist groups.
Coming from older rightwing extremist parties like the neo-Nazi NPD, Passeick said, “It is a method we have known for decades.” What had changed since the AfD entered the German parliament in 2017, he added, “is the way these attempts are becoming more aggressive and openly visible”. Visibility was also the motive in the northern municipality of Oldenswort on 11 June, when farmers arranged 324 tractors on a field to form the outline of a red sword cutting a white plough – the symbol of the Landvolkbewegung, a farmers’ protest movement active in the state of Schleswig-Holstein from 1928 to 1933. Most famously portrayed in Hans Fallada’s novel A Small Circus, the “rural people’s movement” set out to draw attention to their financial difficulties and the ineffectiveness of their lobby groups, but ended up planting bombs at public buildings, including the Reichstag.
Though Hitler later banned members of the Nazi party from joining in Landvolkbewegung’s protests, historians argue the movement’s nationalistic and anti-parliamentary agenda aided the rise of National Socialism. The revival of the movement’s symbol has been criticised by local politicians.
Farmer Jann-Henning Dircks, who organised this month’s protest, told the Observer he learned about the historical group from the nephews of one of its founders. The sword in the symbol, he said, was “the knife used by the politicians and know-it-alls in our country to destroy our homeland”.
Farmers were frustrated with the growing bureaucracy posed by new regulations on the use of fertilisers and the protection of insects, he said, adding that legal inconsistencies across the EU meant German farmers were struggling to compete against counterparts in eastern Europe.
Asked why he had chosen to reclaim such an inflammatory symbol, he said: “You have to cause a scandal before you get a hearing. Obviously we distance ourselves from National Socialism, but we can’t deny our history”. Dircks said his movement would resist being patronised by any party, and claimed there had been no overt attempts to seek contact from far-right groups. “I don’t even know anyone in the AfD, but since not everyone wears their party membership on their sleeve, I can’t completely rule it out either.”
The LODE Zone Line passes through the German state of Schleswig-Holstein from Friedrichskoog on its western North Sea Coast. The LODE Zone Line crosses Ireland too.
Climate Action Tracker
The German government’s new Climate and Energy Package, agreed in September 2019, does not contain enough policy action to meet its own emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2030, which themselves are outdated and insufficient. The CAT rates Germany’s 55% emissions reduction target for 2030 (agreed in 2010) as “Highly Insufficient”; it needs to be strengthened to be compatible with the Paris Agreement.
Earlier changes in regulation have almost completely stopped expansion of wind power in 2019 and the new Climate and Energy Package will not reverse this trend. The package also lacks a clear long-term vision to reach its envisaged goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The new, positive structural elements to German policy - a coal phase-out, a carbon price on fuels in buildings and transport, and an overarching climate law - lack sufficient quantitative ambition to meet the government’s targets, let alone the Paris Agreement’s mitigation challenge.
On coal, the proposed phase-out schedule of 2038 is almost a decade too slow to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and there is even a hint that a new coal-fired power station may go online in the short term. The phase-out schedule was proposed by a multi-stakeholder commission in combination with compensation to local people and companies of up to €50 bn EUR to compensate for the 20 000 jobs that will be lost in the coal industry.
The government has already acknowledged it will not meet its 40% reduction target for 2020. The CAT’s current projections indicate emissions reductions of 33% to 36% by then compared to 1990. The failure to meet the 2020 target would result in a cumulative 1 GtCO2e of additional emissions compared to the original target path, and hence adds significantly to the mitigation task.
Meanwhile, after previously leading in providing new renewable energy capacity in electricity, capacity additions of wind and solar have slowed down significantly, putting the whole industry at risk. Less than half the amount of PV is being built today compared to the peak years of 2010-2012; onshore wind is down to roughly a tenth of its 2017 peak. More jobs were lost in the last decade in both sectors individually than people currently employed in the coal sector. In addition, the measures in the new Climate and Energy Package are not enough to accelerate development to meet the government’s 2030 renewable electricity target of 65%.
On the basis of the September 2019 Climate and Energy Package, in November 2019, the first chamber of the German parliament (Bundestag) adopted a national climate law and associated regulations, which have only been partly confirmed by the second chamber (Bundesrat). It includes only the national 2030 climate target and the “commitment to pursue greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050 as a long-term goal”. The national climate law distributes the 55% reduction by 2030 target to sectors and gives implementation responsibility to sector ministries. While this improves accountability, the associated measures are not ambitious enough and have been heavily criticised by German environmental organisations and opposition parties.
The package also includes a new carbon price for the building and transport sectors. The impact of this new system is very difficult to predict, but the effect of the initial price of 10 EUR/tCO2 will be minimal.
In the Emerald Isle . . .
“The wider world’s greatest challenge is to restore biodiversity and stop the madness that climate change will bring if it goes unchecked. That’s what our job will be in government and what we have been voted in to do.”The Green Party of Ireland has agreed to a coalition deal with Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to form a government after months of negotiations.
Olivia Rutherford
Mon 29 Jun 2020
The Green Party in Ireland has formed a new government with two larger parties after the terms of its coalition deal received significant support from its membership.
76 per cent of the Greens’ membership approved the decision for the party to enter into a coalition with Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil on Friday (26 June), surpassing the two-thirds majority of votes needed to back the draft Programme for Government.
In the February elections, the Greens received unprecedented support and increased its vote share by 4.4 per cent to 7.1 per cent, taking 12 seats in the 180-seat Dáil Éireann (lower house of the Irish Parliament).
Fianna Fáil gained 38 seats, followed by Sinn Féin on 37 seats, and Fine Gael, with 35 seats. With votes divided and no party commanding the majority of the votes, a hung Dáil ensued.
This spurred historic centre-right rivals Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to seek support from the Greens to enable them to form a coalition government. Sinn Féin had sought to form a government but was unable to muster sufficient support from smaller parties after Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil ruled out working with the pro-unification party.
Fianna Fáil’s Micheál Martin is expected to lead the country until December 2022 as new taoiseach (Irish prime minister) before handing back over to Leo Varadkar, the Fine Gael leader to form a new government.
The Green Party has received four cabinet positions as part of the coalition agreement, with party leader Eamon Ryan serving as Minister for Climate action, Communication Networks and Transport, and deputy leader Catherine Martin serving as Minister for Media, Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports and the Gaeltacht.
Roderic O'Gorman has also been made Minister for Children, Disability, Equality and Integration, while Pippa Hackett will attend cabinet as Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity.
The Programme for Government includes several key Green policies, including the delivery of a Green New Deal, which will target net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, achieve at least 70 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 and undertake a significant building retrofitting programme, among other policies.
Reflecting on the last few months and Friday’s decision the Greens Deputy Leader Catherine Martin commented that it had been a “difficult process” but she is “proud” of how the party has engaged in the process.
She said: “I know some members and supporters will be disappointed with this outcome. I want to assure all members who did not support this Programme for Government that we have heard you and value your concerns. Your vigilance and oversight is more vital now than ever before.”
Speaking following the announcement Green Party Leader Eamon Ryan TD said: “There is a sense of responsibility on us now. We have a job to do. We must work with our coalition partners in getting our country out of a really severe economic crisis. People who are at home now who may have lost their job or are at risk of losing their job – they need a government. We need to get up and stand up for them and get the country working.”
Climate Action Tracker
The European Union’s Paris Agreement target of at least a 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 is rated as “Insufficient” and its policies are already on track to meet this target. There is an expectation the EU is planning to put forward a revised and more ambitious 2030 NDC target in 2020.
The European Parliament, the new head of the European Commission, and a number of leaders of the EU member states have already called for increasing the 2030 target to a 55% reduction, which would be a significant improvement - but not yet enough to reach a Paris Agreement compatible emissions pathway.
Available assessments show that the EU can substantially increase its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions reduction goal by going beyond the policies it has already adopted and take action congruent with its level of economic development. For example, the 2018 renewable energy and energy efficiency goals would already result in emissions reductions of around 48% by 2030.
After three years of remaining constant, in 2018 the EU’s emissions decreased by around 2.1%, driven mainly by a decrease in the energy sector. Another positive piece of news is that, the reform of the EU ETS – finalised in 2018 – resulted in higher-priced allowances. At least half the proceeds from the EU ETS allowance auction must be spent on climate action, which has increased resources available for low-carbon measures.
The adoption of eight pieces of legislation in the “Clean Energy for all Europeans” package in 2018 and early 2019 has created a framework for the decarbonisation of the energy and buildings sectors by the middle of the century.
New emissions reduction goals for passenger cars, as well as light and heavy-duty vehicles – if effectively implemented – will address increasing emissions from the transport sector. This is very timely as emissions in the transport sector, a fifth of the EU’s overall emissions, increased slightly in the past year.
An increasing concern relates to natural gas. While overall natural gas consumption decreased by 1.8% in 2018, some EU member states are increasing their support for the development of gas infrastructure that will increase EU dependency on energy imports, undermine energy security, lead to stranded assets, and jeopardise meeting the Paris Agreement goals. The decision of the European Investment Bank to stop funding investment in gas infrastructure is a step in the right direction. Shifting resources being used for natural gas infrastructure to achieve the EU’s climate goals is important.
This indicates that the EU’s climate action needs to be accelerated and broadened to other sectors, especially transport and buildings, which requires adopting additional measures in the short term and a clear long-term perspective driving innovation on the continent. Such a long-term perspective could be offered by the 2050 emissions neutrality goal currently under discussion at the European level – after the majority of the EU member states have already adopted such a goal. When, in June 2019, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and Estonia (which has since withdrawn its opposition), blocked this goal, it was a major blow to the EU’s attempt to re-establish its position as a global leader on climate policy action.
To accelerate decarbonisation – especially in the transport and building sectors – legislation must be efficiently and effectively implemented. Whereas it is up to car manufacturers to find ways to achieve new emissions standards and quotas for zero and low emissions vehicles, national governments need to create a conducive framework for facilitating this process.
Member states and local public authorities also need to promote modal shift by investing in improved public transport and expand rail infrastructure. Implementation of best case practices in the building sector, introducing a pan-European ban on installing oil, gas and coal heating in new builds, flanked with support for low-carbon and zero carbon alternatives such as heat pumps, would not only result in emissions reductions, but would also reduce Europeans’ energy bills and promote the EU’s energy security.
In Ukraine . . .
This Ukraine News Brief and Action Alert for Climate Scorecard (April 21, 2020), by Yevheniia Zasiadko is headlined:
Ukraine Passes New Energy Reform Legislation That Needs Implementation
In the past 5 years, Ukraine has adopted a slew of laws in keeping with its commitments to European integration and becoming closer to the EU energy market. At the same time, the country has had some considerable difficulties in the implementation of this new legislation.
Energy efficiency
Laws “On the Energy Efficiency of Buildings”, “On the Energy Efficiency Fund” and “On Commercial Accounting” were adopted in this period. Since 2015, housing cooperatives and individuals have been able to receive government assistance by obtaining a loan for energy-efficient measures (the “Warm Loans” program).
Specifically, the dedicated Energy Efficiency Fund began functioning only at the end of 2019 and will need time to become popular with the general public and amalgamated communities, newly created due to the decentralization reform.
Continued subsidies and subventions
The state coal sector is completely dependent on state budget subsidies and the crisis has only deepened in the past 5 years. Subsidies to the population for paying for utilities continue to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same time, the scaling of energy efficiency measures is slow and the “Warm Loans” program is consistently underfunded. The monetization of subsidies to the population is also not completed, and the benefits are almost non-monetized.
Energy markets and independent energy regulator
Laws “On Natural Gas Market” and “On the Electricity Market” were adopted in 2015 and 2017, respectively. The reforms to the gas market amounted to an exponential increase of all energy prices for households. The burden on consumers has gotten bigger and this allowed for a change of subsidies model to a targeted support.
The electricity market reform is still ongoing and additional legislation is still being prepared. In 2017, there was also a signed-agreement on accession to the ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission System Operators). Ukraine has begun to publish open data on the ENTSO-E Transparency Platform, but with considerable delays and not in full.
The Law “On the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities” (NCSRE) was adopted in 2016. At the end of 2019, the Ukrainian parliament approved a bill that threatened the independence of the NCSRE. Its status was changed from an independent state collegial body to a central executive body with a special status subordinate to the government.
Green tariffs vs. auctions
Due to a change in the renewable energy support model and the transition from green to auction tariffs, investors have stepped up the construction of new RES projects in the years leading up to 2020. As a result, more new RES capacities were built in 2019 than in all previous years, so much so that there is a shortage of funds necessary to pay for green tariffs. As of March 2020, this issue remains unresolved and is critical to the investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the first “green” auctions are scheduled to begin in April 2020.
By 2020, a “green tariff” system was in operation in Ukraine, which provides for the redemption of all “green” electricity by the state enterprise, which partially allows getting a positive systemic effect from the increase in the share of renewable energy. The new system includes a new system of auctions, which focuses more on supporting RES for large projects, where small plants will have difficulty competing.
Energy independence from Russia
Ukraine has phased-out Russia as its main gas importer. Since 2016, the country has abandoned supplies from Russia and in 2018 Ukraine bought gas from 18 European suppliers, none of which accounted for more than 30% of the supply. The country is also trying to find ways to increase its own production.
In late 2019, Ukraine and Russia agreed on a new five-year deal for the transit of gas to the EU.
Activity Rating: *** Right Direction
Overall, the reforms made were expansive, including nagging issues of the Ukrainian energy sector – transparency, accountability, competition, security. Some of them got sidetracked and slowed down due to a number of issues, chief of which is an apparent lack of political will. On the other hand, the creation of new energy markets, the potential for energy efficiency measures and new rules for RES mark a watershed moment in the country’s development.
In early 2020, the Ukrainian Ministry of Energy and Environmental Protection presented a Concept of Green Energy Transition until 2050 (Ukraine Green Deal). According to it, the country will increase energy efficiency; phase-out coal generation by 2050; secure at least 70% RES in electricity generation by 2050; and will reach net-zero emissions by 2070.
The aim declared in the concept is less ambitious than what scientists demand: becoming carbon neutral by 2050 to effectively tackle climate change. But it’s a starting point for further deliberations. If this concept becomes a national policy it will demand a complete reshaping of the energy sector and will call for new and drastic reforms.
In this article by Dmytro Kuzubov, Environmental problem No. 3 on this list compiled by Euromaidan Press is:
Massive deforestation.
Forests cover 15.9% of Ukraine’s territory. Due to foreign demand, Ukrainian loggers and timber companies are illegally trafficking abroad entire trains and lorries of fir trees, earning millions and millions of dollars. Deforestation has dramatically intensified as Ukrainian lumber is exported massively to Western Europe.
In recent years, the area of primeval forests has been dramatically decreasing in the Carpathians while 60% of Bukovyna’s forests, which are included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, have been destroyed. The trees which protected the river banks from erosion by swollen rivers are no longer there, thus causing more natural disasters, more floods and drought.
A ten-year moratorium on the export of unprocessed timber (roundwood) was approved by the Verkhovna Rada in 2015, but this has not stopped illegal logging as EU demands for cheap timber increases annually. Moreover, rather than supporting the measure, the EU has sought to force the Ukrainian government to overturn the ban.
The EU alleges that the ban contravenes the free-trade terms of its May 2015 €1.8 billion loan agreement with Ukraine, and has repeatedly withheld large tranches of that cash in order to try to force the Ukrainian government to overturn the moratorium.
In July 2018, a UK-based non-profit organization Earthsight published a damning report, Complicit in Corruption, confirming the sheer scale of corruption and illegality of Ukraine’s forestry sector. The report was welcomed by the Ukrainian Prime Minister, other top officials and local forest activists. The report says:
“The EU is by far the largest destination for Ukrainian wood exports, representing 70% of total production. EU purchases have been rising rapidly, breaking €1 billion in 2017…
The EU buyers of this wood include a number of billion-dollar firms, whose owners are among Europe’s wealthiest individuals. Though they are not themselves formally accused of wrongdoing, Earthsight found some of these giant companies are actually mentioned in ongoing criminal investigations of officials in Ukraine. One – Austrian firm Schweighofer, Europe’s second largest sawmiller – has even been specifically implicated in the corrupt scheme allegedly masterminded by the former forest chief. All of them continue to import large volumes of wood from state logging enterprises which are the subject of such investigations.
These companies supply products sold in the largest retail chains in Europe, including Homebase in the UK and Obi in Germany, HP copy paper on sale in branches of Staples and furniture sold by Ikea.”
Climate Action Tracker
The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted Ukraine, currently leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating the country’s energy crisis that had slowly been building for years due to a lack of long-term energy policy planning. Ukraine could reach its “Critically insufficient” commitment under the Paris Agreement based on current policy trends outlined in the 2050 Low Emission Development Strategy. If all policies in the strategy were to be fully implemented, Ukraine’s emissions would be significantly lower than its Paris target emission levels - even more so when taking into account the impact of COVID-19. Therefore, Ukraine has ample room to ratchet up its 2030 ambition in the near future. At this moment Ukraine falls into the group of countries whose Paris Agreement targets are so weak that it would take little to no effort to achieve.
We expect Ukraine’s GHG emissions in 2020 will be 6% lower than in 2019: pre-COVID-19 they were projected to be 5% higher. Restricted travel mobility, reduced energy demand and production as well as a slowdown in industrial production due to the COVID-19 pandemic are leading to this projected drop in emissions.
In May 2020, the Ukrainian government approved the Economic Stimulus Program to help stabilise the economy. While the document mentions optimising the environmental tax to promote eco-friendly modernisations, links to climate and environmental policy are limited, and local environmental NGOs argued that money from the economic stimulus funds could be used for restructuring the coal industry to save mining jobs. If Ukraine neglects low carbon development strategies and policies, emissions could rebound and even overshoot previously projected levels by 2030, despite lower economic growth.
Ukraine’s energy sector is in severe crisis: due to quarantine measures both energy demand and production are decreasing, and the power sector payment regime is on the verge of collapse, potentially leading to a power crisis. The generous “green tariff” introduced to attract investments into renewables has led to investments in the order of USD 4.5 billion into wind and solar power in 2019 alone. The government, however, had only budgeted to buy roughly half of the renewable power that companies are likely to produce in 2020, and is now looking at a cumulative debt on the whole electricity market of about USD 1.87 billion and roughly the same for the gas market.
In January 2020, the Ministry of Energy and Environmental Protection published Ukraine’s 2050 Green Energy Transition Concept (Ukraine Green Deal). Overall, the concept focuses on reducing GHG emissions through improving energy efficiency and boosting the deployment of renewable energy. While this is a step in the right direction, the 2050 phase-out date for coal is too late, and under the current plan Ukraine will achieve carbon-neutrality only by 2070. To become effective the concept will still need to be supported by concrete policy measures through the National Energy and Climate Plan, which is expected to be completed in the second half of 2020.
After the July 2019 elections, the former head of the Ukrainian Association of Renewable Energy, Oleksiy Orzhel, was appointed Minister of Energy and Environmental Protection, which sent a positive signal. In March 2020 however, more than two-thirds of the Cabinet of Ministers, including Orzhel, were dismissed and leave behind a mixed legacy: while the publication of the Ukraine Green Deal was a step forward, there was limited progress on other urgent matters such as coal phase-out, electricity market reform or a clear shift away from natural gas. The changes in government, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic have left the Ministry with an interim minister and no clear policy direction for the energy sector.
In India . . .
. . . the coronavirus lockdown speeds India’s shift from coal to solar power
In an article for Climate Home News Chloé Farand writes (07/05/2020):
Travel restrictions to halt the spread of coronavirus are speeding the switch from coal to renewable energy in India.
The world’s second largest coal consumer has seen its energy demand collapse by nearly 30% during the lockdown which started on 25 March, with coal generators bearing the brunt.
In 2018, the International Energy Agency forecast Indian coal demand would more than double by 2040 – a major challenge to international efforts to prevent climate breakdown.
With the right policy framework in place, coal generation in India could peak much sooner, analysts have told Climate Home News.
“I think we will see the peak in coal use for power generation this decade,” said Tim Buckley, director of energy finance studies for the Australia and South Asia region at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (Ieefa).
“There is potential for India to really surprise the global community and contribute to the decarbonisation story while doing it in a very cost-effective way.”
There was political backing for renewable energy prior to the Covid-19 crisis, emboldened by rapidly falling costs.
At the UN Climate Action Summit in New York last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to double India’s renewable target to 450GW by 2030, up from around 87GW installed capacity today. The bulk will come from solar panels.
The cost of adding solar electricity stands at about 2.5 rupees per unit generated, compared with around 4.5 rupees for new coal capacity, according to analysts. Even coupled with more expensive batteries to store electricity for after dark, solar energy was auctioned at a cheaper price than new coal earlier this year.
Meanwhile, the coal sector has been faced with cash flow issues over the past few years, with most plants running well under capacity.
An analysis by Ieefa found that renewables delivered more than two-thirds of India’s new generating capacity additions in the 2019-20 fiscal year.
Before the outbreak, Sunil Dahiya, analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said there was “a clear signal that coal will not fuel future electricity growth,” which will mostly be provided by renewables.
“Now the pandemic makes that trend much clearer,” Dahiya said. “Coal capacity could peak before 2025,” he said, noting a peak in coal generation will take longer.
The competitive cost of renewable energy is not the only reason for the sector’s resilience in a period of low demand.
In India, the sector benefits from a “must-run” status compelling power distribution companies to use solar or wind energy whenever it is generated.
Powered by sun and wind, renewable generators are not exposed to the same supply chain disruptions as fossil fueled plants.
“The resilience of the renewable model was established during the lockdown,” Abhishek Dangra, senior director at S&P Global Ratings, told Climate Home News.
“The pandemic tipped the scale in favour of renewables for cleaner and cheaper power,” he said, adding that coal’s share in power generation will continue to decline in the medium to long term.
For Dangra, 2027 could mark the peak in capacity when India “will likely not need any new coal plants”.
In recent years, private investors have also been increasingly reluctant to invest in Indian coal infrastructure with much new finance coming from state-backed banks and companies. On the contrary, global investors are ready to invest “aggressively” in new renewable infrastructure, Buckley said.
“You can’t build a power plant if it’s not funded and if it’s not going to provide a return. And from a financial perspective, you can’t justify a new coal-fired power plant,” he added.
“The pandemic has accelerated the debate about what choices India will have to make” for its energy sector, Swati Dsouza, a New Delhi-based consultant at the Brookings Institute told CHN.
Despite the favourable conditions for boosting renewables, Dsouza did not rule out an uptick in coal generation and new capacity once the lockdown lifts, saying coal will continue to meet baseload demand. “Renewables have not been a substitute for coal,” she said. None of the new coal plants in the pipeline for construction have so far been cancelled.
Buckley said he was confident the Indian government could deliver on its target of 450GW of renewable energy by the end of the decade despite the huge effort needed to scale up the sector.
The pace of renewable deployment and the growth of the Indian economy will remain key factors in determining the shape of the transition. It will also depend on the grid being ready to match variable solar and wind generation with consumer demand.
As Prime Minister Modi called on the nation to turn off their lights for nine minutes at 9pm on 5 April in a call for solidarity against coronavirus, there were concerns the grid might collapse.
“This was a huge test of resilience for the grid,” Buckley told CHN. “But it passed with flying colours.”
With a looming global recession and an Indian government strapped for cash while fighting the pandemic, there can be no trillion-recovery package expected to accelerate India’s clean energy transition.
For Buckley, that will require Modi to think “laterally” about ways to boost renewable deployment “and marshal all the private capital on it”.
Another story from Chloé Farand (19/06/2020) for Climate Home News is not so encouraging.
India eyes private investment to open 41 new coal mines
Prime Minister Modi says private coal mining will boost India’s energy security, despite expert warnings of stranded assets and indigenous rights violations
The Indian government is opening coal mining to private investment in the hope of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, following an economic slump triggered by the coronavirus pandemic.
However the move threatens valuable forests and indigenous land rights, while expanding a polluting and financially challenged industry.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the auction of 41 coal mining blocks to private companies on Thursday, in a major shake-up to the sector which is dominated by state-controlled Coal India. Modi said the move would help reduce India’s reliance on energy imports and develop the eastern and central parts of the country.
“People of these districts are aspiring for development but have lagged behind,” he said, adding 16 districts in these areas had “huge stocks of coal” but people had not been able to benefit from this mineral wealth.
Modi said commercial mining would reduce the need for people to migrate far from their homes to seek employment, giving people jobs extracting and transporting coal. He said the country would spent $6.5bn on new coal infrastructure.
“Extra revenue through coal production will be used for public welfare schemes” in those regions, he added.
The auction has been described as a “desperate” move by the government to boost investments in the coal sector despite its declining future.
Before the coronavirus pandemic, the coal power sector had cash flow issues, with most plants running well under capacity. Coal generators’ problems only deepened when energy demand collapsed by nearly 30% during the lockdown.
While India remains the world’s second largest coal consumer,the falling cost of renewable energy has made it consistently cheaper to generate electricity with wind and solar energy than new coal. An analysis by Ieefa found that renewables delivered more than two-thirds of India’s new generating capacity additions in the 2019-20 fiscal year.
“Growth in coal demand is diminishing,” Sunil Dahiya, analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air told Climate Home News. “So, even if this coal is mined where is demand?”
Dahiya warned that an aggressive push for coal mining risks creating stranded assets which cannot be sold to power generation companies. “That would be another economic disaster,” he said.
And yet, the auction has lower barriers to entry than ever before, making it easier for private companies to enter the bidding process, said Rohit Chandra, a coal expert and a fellow at the Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research – a move he described as “desperate”.
He told CHN only a handful of private companies in India had sufficient liquidity to invest in these coal mines. “If you invest in a coal mine today, it will take 2-5 years to open and for the company to receive dividends. There is going to be a gradual transition away from coal and in 5-7 years you are unlikely to see new coal power plant opening.”
As the energy market slowly starts to turn its back on coal, “who is ready to take this risk?” he asked.
The location of some of the 41 mining blocks raises environmental and human rights concerns.
Aruna Chandrasekhar, an independent journalist who has written extensively on India’s coal sector, told CHN a majority of the mines for sale in the auction were located “in environmentally fragile zones and indigenous land that should not have been acquired in the first place”.
This includes the Hasdeo Arand, one of the largest contiguous stretches of very dense forest and an elephant habitat in central India. It is home to the Gond indigenous group. At least four new mines are being sold in the forest despite local opposition to ongoing mining activity.
Consultations and environmental assessments are expected to take place after the auction, “ruling out people’s ability to veto the auctions before they happen,” Chandrasekhar added.
The forest was once earmarked as a “no-go” area for mining – a decision reversed in 2011 to allow Indian conglomerate Adani to mine coal in the forest. In 2014, The National Green Tribunal which deals with environmental issues ruled against the forest clearance. The case went to the Supreme Court which called on the government to reassess its mining policy in the forest – a demand that has so far been ignored.
The auction raises the threat of new displacements, which Chandrasekhar said had been “a chronic act of violence” against indigenous people. There was “little track record of rehabilitation” in the area, she added.
In a statement Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, a coalition of pro-democracy groups, called for mass protests opposing the new mines in the mineral-rich eastern state of Jharkhand. The coalition said mining “especially in corporate interests, does not improve well-being of the people” and called on the state government to side with its people against the acquisition of their land without consent.
“Opening the state for domestic and foreign corporate mining entities will further destroy the livelihoods and environment,” the statement said.
Climate Action Tracker
India has emerged as a global leader in renewable energy, where investments top those into fossil fuel. After adopting its National Electricity Plan (NEP) in 2018, India remains on track to overachieve its “2˚C compatible” rated Paris Agreement climate action targets.
At the Secretary General’s summit in New York, India announced its intention to reach a target of 450 GW of renewables by 2030. The emissions reduction potential of this target is within the range of the CAT’s current policy projections. For three consecutive years, renewable energy investment topped that of fossil fuel-related power investments and in 2018, solar investments exceeded those in coal. Given the price-competitiveness of solar PV, these should be India’s preferred choice of distribution companies.
A significant caveat on the outlook for India is the ongoing expansion of coal. The Paris agreement 1.5 Celsius limit means that there needs to be a phase-out of coal in the power sector by 2040, at the latest globally.
The National Electricity Plan (NEP) in 2018 included more than 90 GW of planned coal-fired capacity which will increase emissions unnecessarily, and risk becoming stranded assets. Abandoning these plans is more than feasible when we consider recent developments such as a 50% decrease in the cost of solar power in just two years and several utilities shelving plans to build coal plants.
Despite the negative trend in the power sector due to coal, India’s Paris Agreement target is within the range of what is considered to be a “2°C compatible” fair share of global effort. This means that India’s unconditional Paris Agreement climate commitment in 2030, even while it allows the country’s total emissions to increase, is consistent with holding warming to 2°C. India could become a global climate leader with a “1.5˚C compatible” rating if it abandons plans to build new coal-fired power plants.
Right now, the nation has over 200 GW of coal-fired capacity in operation; if all the planned capacity is built, this could increase to over 300 GW over the next few years. This is an important consideration, as India’s CO2 emissions rose by 4.8% in 2018, largely driven by emissions from coal power plants. Estimates show India could achieve the more ambitious part of its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) goals—a 40% non-fossil-based power capacity by 2030 more than a decade earlier than targeted.
The latest Carbon Brief Profile for Indonesia was published 27 March 2019
In the sixth article of a series on how key emitters are responding to climate change, Carbon Brief looks at Indonesia’s efforts to curb deforestation and tame polluting peatland fires.
This Carbon Brief Profile is authored by Daisy Dunne and published 27.03.2019
Indonesia was the world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2015. It is the 16th biggest economy and the largest in southeast Asia. Its emissions stem from deforestation and peatland megafires and, to a lesser extent, the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
The country recently overtook Australia again to become the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal. It plans to substantially increase its domestic coal-powered generation – partially in a bid to help close the “electricity gap” between its wealthy and less-connected islands.
The current government has pledged to cut emissions by 29-41% by 2030, compared to a “business as usual” scenario.
Research released in February by Jatam, an Indonesian NGO that monitors the mining industry, found that 86% of the $4m in donations reported by the Widodo campaign is linked to big mining and fossil-fuel companies. It also found that 70% of the $3.4m declared by the Prabowo campaign is linked to mining and fossil-fuel firms.
On 17 February 2019, both candidates took part in a televised debate on the theme of “environment, energy and infrastructure”. According to the environmental website Mongabay, both pledged to increase the cultivation of palm oil – the major driver of deforestation in the country. Neither candidate mentioned how they planned to tackle climate change.
Across the country, 41% of people describe themselves as “very concerned” about climate change, according to a poll taken in 2015. This is lower than the proportion of people concerned in neighbouring Vietnam (69%), Malaysia (44%) and the Philippines (72%), but equal to the proportion in the UK.
Indonesia is part of five negotiating blocs at international climate negotiations. These include the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs); the G77 and China; the Coalition for Rainforest Nations; the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the Cartagena Dialogue. (More information on each group is available in an in-depth explainer of negotiating blocs by Carbon Brief.)
The country’s annual greenhouse gas emissions were 2.4bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2015, according to data compiled by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The figure includes emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). Indonesia’s emissions represented 4.8% of the world’s total global emissions for that year.
Its per-capita emissions were 9.2 tonnes of CO2e that year – larger than the global average (7.0 tonnes of CO2e) and the average in China (9.0 tonnes of CO2e), the UK (7.7 tonnes of CO2e) and the EU (8.1 tonnes of CO2e).
However, it is worth noting that Indonesia’s total emissions vary widely from year to year, largely as a result of variable peatland “megafires”
The chart below, which is taken from Indonesia’s latest biennial report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), gives an idea of how the country’s peatland fires can shift overall emissions.
The chart shows emissions from peatland fires (blue), forestry and other land use (“FOLU”; green), waste (yellow), agriculture (pale green), industry (“IPPU”; red) and energy (orange). (It is worth noting that the figures shown are self-reported.)
Indonesia’s climate pledge (“nationally determined contribution”, or NDC) targets a 29-41% reduction in emissions by 2030, compared to “business as usual”. The upper end of this range, conditional on “support from international cooperation”, would see emissions in 2030 remain at or below recent levels.
This pledge was submitted to the UNFCCC in the lead up to the Paris climate conference. Indonesia ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016.
The country aims to decarbonise its economy “in a phased approach” – namely, through policies for “improved land use and spatial planning, energy conservation and the promotion of clean and renewable energy sources, and improved waste management”.
This pledge has been rated “highly insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent research project tracking climate policies. The rating suggests that Indonesia is not committing its “fair share” to the emissions cuts needed to limit global warming to less than 2C. If all countries had similar targets, temperatures would reach 3-4C by 2100, the analysis finds.
Indonesia’s emissions have increased at a faster rate than expected in recent years, CAT says, and, under current policies, “might even double by 2030”, when compared to 2014 levels.
Deforestation, palm oil and fire
Indonesia contains 10% of the world’s tropical rainforests and 36% of its tropical peatlands.
Tropical peatlands are wet and swampy forested environments with soil that can hold up to 20 times more carbon than other types of mineral soil. It is estimated that Indonesia’s peatlands hold around 28bn tonnes of carbon – the equivalent of nearly three years of global fossil fuel emissions.
Indonesia also accounts for 53% of the world’s palm-oil cultivation, a product ubiquitous in packaged food, fuels and cosmetics. It is the country’s third most profitable export after coal and petroleum, and the industry employs an estimated 3.7 million people.
The thirst for palm oil has transformed the country’s landscape. From 2000 to 2015, Indonesia lost an average of 498,000 hectares of forest each year – making it the world’s second biggest deforester after Brazil.
Much of this past deforestation involved “slash and burn” clearing, which has played a large role in driving polluting megafires across the country’s peatlands. When fires rip across peatlands, much of their vast stores of carbon are released into the atmosphere.
The practice of draining peatlands has also heightened the risk of megafires. In order to grow palm oil and other crops, such as timber, peatlands are often drained of their natural moisture – leaving them dry and more likely to catch alight.
In 2015, the number of peatland fires spiked – causing greenhouse gas release on the same scale as Brazil’s total annual emissions. On some days, Indonesia’s fire emissions alone were higher than those from the entire US economy. (The fires in 2015 were fanned further by hot dry conditions as a result of the natural climate phenomenon El Niño.)
The smoke from the fires led to 19 deaths and caused up to half a million people to suffer from respiratory illness, the Guardian reported at the time.
That year, changes to land-use, peatlands and forests accounted for 79% of Indonesia’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
In the wake of the deadly haze, Widodo announced a nationwide moratorium on the draining of Indonesia’s peatlands. He later set up the Peatlands Restoration Agency and tasked it with restoring 2m hectares of tropical peatlands by 2020.
From 2016 to 2017, forest loss in Indonesia fell by 60% – in part due to the moratorium, analysts say.
In September 2018, Widodo issued a presidential instruction to place a moratorium on new permits for palm plantations for three years.
However, “threats remain”, analysts say. More than a quarter of the peatlands put under protection in 2015 had already been auctioned off to palm oil and timber firms. To compensate these companies, the government is operating a “land swap” scheme, offering firms access to unprotected land. Some groups warn this could clear the way for more deforestation.
This year, the European Union tightened its rules on biofuels in an attempt to limit the use of palm oil linked to deforestation – a move that was bitterly opposed by Indonesian ministers.
A recent investigation by Unearthed uncovered evidence suggesting that Indonesian ministers had tried to pressurise European countries, including the UK, into opposing the rule change. The investigation also found that, in 2016, France scrapped a proposed tax on unsustainable supplies of palm oil after being warned it could lead to the execution of a French citizen in Indonesia.
Re:LODE Radio covered this in the first post for 2020 "THE YEAR OF TRUTH"
FIRST: Some SCIENCE . . .
SECOND: Some POLITICS . . .
Coal
Indonesia is the world’s fifth largest producer of coal and is home to the world’s 10th largest coal reserves, according to the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
Around 80% of Indonesia’s coal is exported, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). From 2000 to 2014, Indonesia’s coal exports quadrupled, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
In 2017, Indonesia overtook Australia to become the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal, which is used for power generation, according to the IEA.
China is the primary buyer of Indonesian coal and received 31% of its exports in 2017, says the IEA. Other key customers include India, Japan and South Korea.
Coal mining has many environmental impacts in Indonesia. For example, the shipping of mined coal from Kalimantan has destroyed “hundreds of square metres” of tropical coral reefs, according to Greenpeace.
Around 58% of Indonesia’s electricity was generated by coal in 2017. This is shown on the chart below (black area).
The country ranks 10th in the world for total coal capacity (29,307 megawatts), but fifth for planned capacity (24,691MW).
However, it is worth noting that Indonesia has repeatedly scaled back its planned coal capacity. In 2015, Indonesia had plans for 45,000MW of new coal. This figure later fell to 34,000MW in 2018 and again to around 25,000MW this year, according to data from Global Energy Monitor.
In its latest report on the global coal market, the IEA identifies Indonesia as a major driver of rising demand over the next five years. It says demand for coal-fired power in the country is likely to increase as a result of “robust economic growth, a rising population and an expanding middle class”.
In 2015, Widodo unveiled an ambitious plan to develop 35,000MW of new power by 2019 – in part to address the “electrification gap” between the country’s wealthy islands, such as Bali, Java and Sumatra, and its smaller, more isolated islands. (The target was later pushed back to 2024.)
The government sees coal-fired power as a “cheap and easy” way to help meet its target, according to the Financial Times. However, analysis by Carbon Tracker found it could become cheaper to build new renewables than new coal between 2020 and 2022, with new renewables becoming cheaper than existing coal by 2028.
In March 2018, officials capped the price of domestic coal for power stations for two years – a move intended to help keep electricity prices low around the time of this year’s election, analysts say.
Coal had not been a major talking point in Widodo’s campaign for reelection, according to Mongabay. However, his rival Prabowo did call for coal use to be slashed and replaced with renewables, according to the Jakarta Post.
For Indonesian presidential hopefuls, burning coal is business as usual
Usman (right) holds a picture of a child whose health affected by a coal-fired power plant. Usman is part of a fishing community in Batang whose livelihoods are under threat from a power plant being built in their area. The 2,000-megawatt facility, billed as the largest project of its kind in Southeast Asia, has faced delays and protests over its potential impact on local and wider ecosystems, but remains on track to be completed by 2020.
Renewables
Just 5% of Indonesia’s electricity came from renewables in 2017 – the vast majority of this from geothermal sources. However, the government has pledged to source 23% of its power from renewables by 2025 and 31% by 2050.
Indonesia is a hotspot for geothermal resources because of its volcanic activity. It sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire and is home to 139 volcanoes, according to the Global Volcanism Program.
The country aims to have 7,200MW of geothermal energy by 2025, which would make it the biggest geothermal producer in the world.
Widodo opened the country’s first wind power farm in July 2018. The Sidrap Wind Farm, the largest of its kind in southeast Asia, produces 75MW of electricity and supplies power to Sulawesi, an island east of Borneo. A second 72MW wind farm is currently under construction on the island.
The country currently has just 16MW of solar power, according to statistics from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
However, the government aims to have 6,400MW of solar and 1,800MW of wind by 2025, according to a report from IRENA.
Yet Indonesia “could feasibly exceed its current goals and deploy even more renewables”, the report says. If policies were adjusted, Indonesia could achieve its 2050 renewables target by 2030, it concludes.
The analysis notes that the potential of solar power is particularly underestimated by current government policy. With new policies and investment, solar has the potential to “provide electricity to nearly 1.1m households in remote areas that currently lack adequate access to electricity”, it says.
Climate laws
Indonesia’s legal system is based on Roman-Dutch law, custom and Islamic law. A wide range of legislation is produced and exists in a hierarchy. This hierarchy is as follows (in order of importance): the 1945 constitution; MPR resolution; law; government regulation substituting a law; government regulation; presidential decree; regional regulation.
Much of Indonesia’s climate-related legislation is directed towards tackling emissions from the forest sector. Such laws, discussed in more detail above, include moratoriums on the draining of peatlands and the conversion of primary rainforest.
In September 2018, Widodo issued a presidential decree to place a moratorium on new permits for palm plantations for three years.
The energy sector is also subject to climate-related regulations. The government issued a regulation in 2014 which contained a pledge to source 23% of its power from renewables by 2025 and 31% by 2050 – up from 5% today.
Indonesia has targets to improve energy efficiency. Its National Master Plan for Energy Conservation (RIKEN) sets a goal of decreasing energy intensity by 1% annually until 2025.
In October 2017, the government announced a new initiative aimed at incorporating climate action into the country’s development agenda. (The country has four separate five-year development plans spanning the period 2005-2025).
The country’s National Medium Term Development Plan for 2015-19 says that a “green economy” should be at the foundation of Indonesia’s development.
This plan targets the eradication of illegal logging, fishing and mining and increased participation of local people in forest management. It also sets out aims to increase vulnerable communities’ resilience to climate change impacts.
It specifically targets emissions cuts from five “priority sectors”, including forestry and peatlands, agriculture, energy and transportation, industrial and waste.
On 25 March 2019, the government launched a report looking at how climate action can be incorporated into the country’s development plan for 2020-25.
The report finds that a “low carbon” development pathway could drive a GDP growth rate of 6% a year until 2045, higher than the rate expected under a “business-as-usual” pathway. This path could also cut emissions by 43% by 2030, when compared to “business-as-usual” – exceeding the country’s current national climate targets.
Climate finance
Indonesia has pledged to cut its emissions by 29-41% by 2030, in comparison to “business as usual” – but the top end of this pledge is conditional on “support from international cooperation”.
The pledge did not, however, specify how much aid it would need to reach the upper end of its target. A separate government document published at the time reported that meeting the country’s renewable energy target alone would cost $108bn.
Indonesia is a major emerging market economy, but its population faces steep financial inequality. A report by Oxfam in 2017 found Indonesia’s four richest men now have more wealth than 100 million of the country’s poorest people.
Analysis by Carbon Brief suggests that Indonesia is the world’s sixth largest recipient of climate finance, having received an average of $952m a year from 2015-16.
Further Carbon Brief analysis shows that, by 2016, Indonesia had been awarded $362m in investment from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Climate Investments Fund (CIF).
Notable schemes financed by the multilateral climate funds include a $150m project to develop private sector geothermal energy and $18m for a community-led project to tackle forest degradation.
Impacts and adaptationAs a highly populous nation spread across a chain of tropical islands, Indonesia is considered to be highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Sea level rise threatens the 42 million people who live less than 10m above sea level in Indonesia. A one-metre rise in sea levels could inundate 405,000 hectares of Indonesia’s coastal land and cause low-lying islands to disappear.
The country’s capital, Jakarta – which is home to 10 million people – is acutely threatened by sea level rise and has been described as the “fastest sinking city” on Earth. The threat of sea level rise has been compounded in the city by illegal well digging, which is causing the ground to plummet.
Visit the Re:LODE Cargo of Questions Information Wrap for Glodok and access this article from 2017-18:
That sinking feeling . . .
Increased rainfall is projected for most of Indonesia’s islands, except for its southern islands, including Java, where it is projected to decline by up to 15%.
Rainfall increases and decreases could boost the risk of flash flooding and droughts, respectively. Indonesia’s megacities are particularly vulnerable to flash flooding, which can trigger devastating landslides.
The timing of the country’s annual monsoon could also be impacted by climate change. Research suggests the risk of a 30-day delay to the monsoon could reach 40% by 2050, compared to 18% today. This could have large consequences for agricultural production.
Carbon Brief analysis finds that average temperatures on Indonesia’s islands have already risen by around 1.2-1.5C since the start of the industrial era.
Increased temperatures – in addition to changes in the natural climate phenomenon El Niño – could further raise the risk posed by forest fires. As well as accelerating climate change, fires pose a risk to Indonesia’s biodiversity. Indonesia is home to 12% of the world’s mammal species, 16% of its reptile species and 17% of its bird species.
Indonesia launched its National Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation (RAN-API) in 2012. In the foreword of the report, Endah Murniningtyas, former deputy minister for natural resources and environmental affairs, wrote:
“As the largest archipelago nation in the world, Indonesia is one of the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.”
The report outlines a plan to improve Indonesia’s resilience to climate change, namely by taking measures to improve energy and food security and to boost the resilience of its forest ecosystems. The report also identifies small islands, coastal regions and cities as “special areas” that most require stronger adaptation measures.
Climate Action Tracker
Indonesia is one of the most populous countries in the world, with substantial emissions from forestry, increasing emissions in all sectors, and a massive coal-fired power generation pipeline; it is also highly vulnerable to climate change. Indonesia’s 2030 NDC target is rated as “Highly Insufficient”; however, its current policy projections, if rated, are better (“Insufficient” and show modest signs of improvement). As with many countries, coal remains a serious and growing issue in Indonesia with plans to install over 6 GW of coal-fired power generation by 2020 and about 27 GW by 2028. Shifting the investments in coal planned for the next five years towards renewable, zero-carbon solutions is crucial to put Indonesia on a pathway compatible with the Paris Agreement and sustainable development.
Indonesia’s current policy emissions projections have been revised downwards, in part due to reduced energy demand expectations. The government has published its medium-term development plan (RPJMN) covering the period between 2020 and 2024. The RPJMN sets a more ambitious renewable electricity target which projects an increase in renewable capacity over three times higher between 2020 and 2024 than anticipated in the electricity supply plan published early in January. If fully implemented, the RPJMN could result emissions reductions beyond current policies and even beyond the National Energy Policy, which sets a renewable target of 23% in total primary energy supply by 2025. But there are no policies in place to support such targets and it is uncertain to what extent Indonesia will adjust existing plans to reach them.
Australia's carbon accounting plan is a sham!
Australia's carbon accounting plan for Paris goals criticised as 'legally baseless' and could set a dangerous precedent for exploting loopholes to delay necessary and urgent action on global heating.
Climate Home News reports:
"Australia’s plan to use Kyoto- era carbon credits to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement is inconsistent with international law, legal experts have warned."
Chloé Farand (04/03/2020)
In a letter to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, nine international and climate law professors said Australia’s method would set “a dangerous precedent” for other countries to “exploit loopholes or reserve their right not to comply with the Paris Agreement”.
“Our considered view is that the proposed use of these ‘Kyoto credits’ to meet targets under the Paris Agreement is legally baseless at international law,” the letter read.
Australia is one of the only countries in the world to have explicitly said it would carry over Kyoto-era carbon credits as a means to meet its 2030 climate target.
The credits were initially issued for Australia’s overachievement in meeting its 1997 Kyoto pledge to curb emissions by 2012.
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, Australia has pledged to cut emissions by at least 26% from 2005 levels by 2030.
Morrison told the UN in September 2019 that “Australia will meet our Paris commitments”, and called the goals “a credible, fair, responsible and achievable contribution to global climate change action.”
But a 2019 UN Environment report listed Australia among a group of 20 nations requiring “further action” to meet its Paris target, along with Brazil, Canada, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and the United States.
Using the credits to meet its commitments under the Paris deal would effectively lower the emissions reductions needed for Australia to achieve its 2030 goal.
If other countries were to follow Australia’s carbon accounting method, the professors said this would further increase the gap between current levels of ambition and what is needed to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
They urged Australia to clarify its position on using the Kyoto carry-over credits.
Australia has come under repeated pressure by the international community to abandon its plans to use the Kyoto credits.
At the last UN climate talks in Madrid in December, an alliance of more than 30 progressive countries denounced Australia’s carbon credits plans as not aligned with efforts to limit global warming to 1.5C – the tougher goal of the Paris Agreement.
Countries including France, Germany, the UK, Spain and New Zealand signed up to the ‘San Jose principles’, which aimed to set the bar for successful carbon market rules. This included the prohibition of Kyoto credits and pre-2020 units to meet the Paris goals.
Australia has a problem with climate change denial.
The message just isn't getting through
The reason being, according to Greg Jericho, reporting on this year’s Digital News Report in Australia, and writing for Guardian Australia (Tue 16 Jun 2020), the influence of media interests to shape the discourse, especially News Corp. He writes:
An international survey of people’s news habits around the world reveals that Australians’ opinions on climate change are determined mostly by age and news source but that, overall, we are more likely to deny climate change than most other nations. And it is clear from the results of the 2020 Digital Media Report that a major reason for this denial is the influence of News Corp.
This year’s Digital News Report in Australia, which is produced by the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra (disclosure, I am also employed by the university and wrote a commentary for this year’s report), covers a wide range of topics that investigate how people access news and what interests them.
The report has some pretty eye-opening results on the topic of climate change, which confirm longheld beliefs about the impact of the News Corp coverage of the issue.
He concludes:
But while it is easy to lay all the blame at the feet of News Corp and those media organisations and journalists who choose to treat climate change as a debatable concept (or possibly a less than serious one) the report also points to the challenge for those of us in the media who agree with the science.
Over a quarter of those who only regard the issue as “somewhat serious” are disinterested in reading about climate change:
This is the challenge for organisations such as Guardian Australia, the ABC, and the Nine/Fairfax papers who do report on the issue with the seriousness it deserves. It is not enough to preach to the converted.
We need to reach those vaguely aware of the issue but not really informed well enough to understand its seriousness. Failure to do so will cede the issue to the climate-change denying media outlets, and will continue to have Australia with one of the highest numbers of deniers in the world.
The New York Times reports on:
How Rupert Murdoch is influencing Australia's bushfire debate
Under the sub heading:
Critics see a concerted effort to shift blame, protect conservative leaders and divert attention from climate change.
Damien Cave reports for The New York Times (Jan. 8, 2020):
WOMBEYAN CAVES, Australia — Deep in the burning forests south of Sydney this week, volunteer firefighters were clearing a track through the woods, hoping to hold back a nearby blaze, when one of them shouted over the crunching of bulldozers.
“Don’t take photos of any trees coming down,” he said. “The greenies will get a hold of it, and it’ll all be over.”
The idea that “greenies” or environmentalists would oppose measures to prevent fires from ravaging homes and lives is simply false. But the comment reflects a narrative that’s been promoted for months by conservative Australian media outlets, especially the influential newspapers and television stations owned by Rupert Murdoch.
And it’s far from the only Murdoch-fueled claim making the rounds. His standard-bearing national newspaper, The Australian, has also repeatedly argued that this year’s fires are no worse than those of the past — not true, scientists say, noting that 12 million acres have burned so far, with 2019 alone scorching more of New South Wales than the previous 15 years combined.
And on Wednesday, Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp, the largest media company in Australia, was found to be part of another wave of misinformation. An independent study found online bots and trolls exaggerating the role of arson in the fires, at the same time that an article in The Australian making similar assertions became the most popular offering on the newspaper’s website.
It’s all part of what critics see as a relentless effort led by the powerful media outlet to do what it has also done in the United States and Britain — shift blame to the left, protect conservative leaders and divert attention from climate change.
“It’s really reckless and extremely harmful,” said Joëlle Gergis, an award-winning climate scientist at the Australian National University. “It’s insidious because it grows. Once you plant those seeds of doubt, it stops an important conversation from taking place.”
News Corp denied playing such a role. “Our coverage has recognized Australia is having a conversation about climate change and how to respond to it,” the company said in an email. “The role of arsonists and policies that may have contributed to the spread of fire are, however, legitimate stories to report in the public interest.”
Yet, for many critics, the Murdoch approach suddenly looks dangerous. They are increasingly connecting News Corp to the spread of misinformation and the government’s lackluster response to the fires. They argue that the company and the coalition led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison are responsible — together, as a team — for the failure to protect a country that scientists say is more vulnerable to climate change than any other developed nation.
Editors and columnists for News Corp were among the loudest defenders of Mr. Morrison after he faced blowback for vacationing in Hawaii as the worst of the fire season kicked off in December.
In late December, the Oz, as the News Corp-owned paper is known here, heavily promoted an interview with the government’s energy minister, Angus Taylor, warning that “top-down” pressure from the United Nations to address climate change would fail — followed by an opinion piece from Mr. Taylor on New Year’s Eve.
Other News Corp outlets followed a similar playbook. Melbourne’s Herald Sun, for example, pushed news of the bushfires to Page 4 on New Year’s Eve, even as they threatened to devastate towns nearby and push thick smoke into the city.
Days later, residents in a town nearly flattened by the fires heckled and snubbed Mr. Morrison during a visit to assess the damage. A new hire for Mr. Murdoch’s Sky News channel, Chris Smith, branded them “ferals” — slang for unkempt country hobos.
Climate Action Tracker
Australia’s Paris Agreement target is 26-28% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 (including LULUCF). With current policies total emissions including LULUCF are projected to be about 7% below 2005 levels by 2030, rising from 15% below in 2013 the last full year before the present government repealed the carbon pricing system. After factoring out the highly uncertain LULUCF sector to focus on energy and industry emissions Australia’s Paris Agreement target translates to a 14-16% decrease from 2005 levels by 2030. Under current policies, Australian emissions are headed for an increase of 8% above 2005 levels by 2030 (excluding LULUCF), and if rated would be “highly insufficient”.
This means Australia’s emissions are set too far outpace its “Insufficient” 2030 target. Emissions excluding the LULUCF sector have increased by around 1% per year on average since 2014, the year in which Australia’s national carbon pricing scheme was repealed.In developments over the last year the Australian government dismissed the findings of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C , discontinued its funding to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), ignored the call by the UN Secretary General and its Pacific Island neighbours to increase its climate action, let alone the expressed desire of Australians for more action – and its emissions continue to increase, despite Government protestations to the contrary. Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels and industry continue to rise. The rapid ramp-up in the production of liquified natural gas (LNG) for export means LNG processing has driven huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.
The “Climate Solutions Package” announced in February 2019 confirms that the Australian government is not intending to implement any serious climate policy efforts. Instead, it wants to meet its targets by relying on carry over units from the Kyoto Protocol, which would significantly lower the actual emission reductions needed. The National Hydrogen Strategy released in November 2019 risks becoming a brown hydrogen strategy in favour of propping up coal and carbon capture and storage technology, rather than focusing on renewable energy and green hydrogen.
The government also wants to continue relying on the inadequate policy instrument, the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) now re-named the “Climate Solutions Fund” which is failing to contribute to any significant emissions reductions. Recent ERF auctions have seen fewer emissions abatements contracted, projects have been dropped from the fund for failing to meet abatements, there are issues of additionality, and the fund is dominated by land use sector abatements with a high risk of reversal, for example through bushfires.
The government continues to consider underwriting new coal fired power generation and extending the lifetime of old coal plants - completely inconsistent with the need to phase out coal globally by 2040 and in OECD countries by 2030. If all other countries were to follow Australia’s “Highly Insufficient” current policy trajectory, warming could reach over 3°C and up to 4°C.
Back in 2017 Jacinda Ardern commits New Zealand to zero carbon by 2050
By Karl Mathiesen
New Zealand’s new prime minister Jacinda Ardern has committed the country to erasing its carbon footprint by the middle of the century.
The Labour leader, who brokered a coalition with the populist right New Zealand First party on Thursday, said on Friday that addressing climate change would be among her top priorities.
Ardern, who becomes the world’s youngest female leader, said: “I do anticipate that we will be a government, as I said during the campaign, that will be absolutely focused on the challenge of climate change.”
She laid out three policy areas that she said Labour had carried through the coalition negotiations with NZ First leader Winston Peters.
“That will include a zero carbon act. That will include an independent climate commission. That will include making sure that we have an all gases, all sectors emissions trading scheme,” said Ardern.
The Green party, who will support the coalition in parliament with a confidence and supply agreement, already back the proposed 2050 net zero emissions target.
NZ First did not carry the target as a policy into the election, but earlier this year during a parliamentary debate MP Denis O’Rourke said “I believe that’s the target we should set”. O’Rourke, however, was not reelected at the 23 September election.
“All three parties share an absolute commitment to addressing climate change,” said Ardern.
The 2050 target would put New Zealand in the vanguard of climate action. Sweden aims for net zero emissions by 2045. Norway has bid to be carbon neutral by 2030. Both nations will rely on offsetting residual emissions by buying international carbon credits and planting trees.
The US, Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Germany and the EU have all committed to deep emissions cuts by the middle of the century, but not net zero.
To achieve the cuts, the New Zealand coalition partners both back the establishment of a UK-style carbon budget system overseen by an independent commission. Earlier this year, John Gummer, chair of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, visited New Zealand. NZ First press releases suggest he made a deep impression.
Labour will also seek to reform the country’s emissions trading scheme to include agriculture – a move opposed by farmers.
New Zealand’s forestry sector has long been a source of concern for campaigners, who say the government is using creative accounting of its plantations to erase carbon pollution from its national total. It is unclear whether Labour intends to reform this sector.
Greenpeace New Zealand told Climate Home News in a tweet the announcements were “a great start. But we want to see Jacinda Ardern and @nzlabour put an end to deep sea oil exploration”. New Zealand exports $1.05bn worth of oil and gas each year. Norway also has a big hydrocarbon industry, the pollution from which it does not count as its own.
During the campaign Ardern said climate change was a generation-defining issue, akin to the fight to make New Zealand a “nuclear-free” zone during the 1970s and 80s.
“I believe that this will be a government of change,” said Ardern on Friday. “We have found allies in this parliament who wish to join with us in building a fairer New Zealand. A country where our environment is protected.”
Unlike in their larger cross-Tasman neighbour, Australia, politicians in New Zealand are broadly aligned on treating climate change as a priority. During a debate on the issue in September, all parties except National rated it as a 10 out of 10 on importance. The National said it was an 8.5.
New Zealand introduced, and passed, a 'zero carbon' bill in 2019.
By Megan Darby
New Zealand will cut net emissions to zero for all greenhouse gases except methane by 2050, under a draft law sent to parliament on Wednesday.
The government proposed a 24-47% cut in methane from 2017 levels, in a compromise with farmers. Almost half the country’s emissions come from agriculture, driven by large sheep and cattle herds belching methane.
Based on the UK model, the bill would set up an independent climate change commission to review and set “emissions budgets” on a five-yearly basis.
Prime minister Jacinda Ardern said her Labour Party had built a “practical consensus” with coalition partners NZ First and the Greens to create the 30-year plan.
The National Party sided with the farming lobby, however, saying the proposed rate of methane cuts was too fast. “New Zealand has been a global leader in sustainable agricultural production,” said opposition leader Simon Bridges in a statement. “For this leadership to be enhanced the sector must continue to embrace change, but this target goes beyond credible scientific recommendations.”
Ardern came to power in 2017 promising a zero carbon law. In recent months, tens of thousands of schoolchildren in New Zealand have gone on strike to back stronger climate action.
The bill aims to “safeguard the future that those school students will inherit”, said climate minister James Shaw. The split emissions target is consistent with holding global warming to 1.5C, he argued, adding: “Agriculture is incredibly important to New Zealand, but it also needs to be part of the solution.”
In a special report on the 1.5C stretch target of the Paris Agreement last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global CO2 emissions needed to reach net-zero by 2050. Methane should be cut by at least 35%. It is a more potent warming gas than CO2, but it breaks down faster in the atmosphere, so its effects are short-lived.
Net-zero commitments under consideration by the UK, France and others would need to be swiftly followed by major developing countries to keep 1.5C in reach.
New Zealand faces distinctive challenges due to the dominance of farming – particularly livestock – in its economy and emissions profile. With 10 million cows and 28 million sheep to 5 million people, concerns from the industry have proved hard to ignore.
There are limited techniques available to reduce the emissions each animal produces from digesting grass. Farmers fear they may have to shrink herds to meet the climate targets.
“This will impose enormous economic costs on the country and threaten many regional communities who depend on pastoral agriculture,” said Tim Ritchie of the Meat Industry Association.
At the same time, plant-based meat alternatives are threatening to disrupt the meat industry. Farming commentator John Hart tweeted: “While we argue, Beyond Meat just had the largest IPO of 2019 at US$5 billion. ‘Fewer cows’ is coming, ready or not.”
Russel Norman of Greenpeace New Zealand said the bill “sends some good signals” but had watered down ambition on methane and lacked clear enforcement mechanisms.
“What we’ve got here is a reasonably ambitious piece of legislation that’s then had the teeth ripped out of it. There’s bark, but there’s no bite,” he said.
Climate Action Tracker
While New Zealand is showing leadership by having passed the world’s second-ever Zero Carbon Act in November 2019, under currently policy projections, it is set to miss its “insufficient” 2030 unconditional target by a wide margin, as it lacks the strong policies required to implement it. There is as yet no signal from the Government that it intends to submit an updated and more ambitious NDC by 2020.
Adopting the Zero Carbon Act is a step forward, but implementation is key. The Zero Carbon Act does not introduce any policies to actually cut emissions but rather sets a framework. Laws in place since 2004 for both land and the marine environment specifically prevent planning bodies from considering the impact on climate change of high-emitting projects when going through the consent process, allowing projects such as gas-fired power stations and coal-fired boilers at dairy plants to proceed. It is unclear whether these will be repealed, but they are a direct threat to the efficacy of the Zero Carbon Act.
At present the Government is relying on emissions removals such as through forestry and the purchase of international units, which will still allow emissions to be released into the atmosphere in 2050 to a level rated by the CAT from insufficient to the border of highly insufficient to hold warming to below 2°C, let alone limiting it to 1.5°C as required under the Paris Agreement.
Coal consumption in New Zealand is dominated by the industrial sector, including dairy and meat processing followed by non-metallic product manufacturing, only regulated by the country’s emissions trading scheme and already heavily subsidised.
The second largest fossil-fuel consuming sector, transport, has recently seen a backdown on its electric vehicle programme.
The Zero Carbon Act aims to achieve net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases, except for methane emissions from agriculture and waste, by 2050. Methane emissions from these two sectors, which represent about 40% of New Zealand’s current emissions, with the lion’s share from agriculture, are covered by a separate target of at least 24-47% below 2017 levels by 2050, with an interim target of 10% by 2030.
While the Zero-Carbon Act recently adopted strengthens its former New Zealand’s 2050 target (halving its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050), excluding such a substantial share of emissions from the net zero goal lowers its ambition.
To reach its 2050 emissions target, the government has recently proposed an Emissions Trading Reform Bill that continues to exempt the country’s largest greenhouse gas sector emitter – agriculture - from a price on its emissions until 2025, when it was originally proposed to cover all sectors’ emissions, and subsidising allocations up to 95%.
The Zero Carbon Act will establish an independent Climate Commission to oversee a five-year carbon budgeting process to drive the required emission reductions. The Commission will also advise on future revisions of the 2050 target, the use of international credits and the extent to which emissions may be banked or borrowed from one budget to the next. The comparable climate advisory body in the UK unequivocally advised its government in February not to bank emissions from that country’s second carbon budget. New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister has called the practice “dodgy accounting”.
In Colombia carbon taxes are key to stop deforestation
By Edward Barbier and Sebastian Troëng (13 March 2020)
Humans destroyed tropical forests last year at a punishing clip — with forest destruction in the Amazon soaring 85% since 2018.
Yet amid this wave of deforestation, two countries are bucking the trend.
In fact, Colombia and Costa Rica saw not only a drop in deforestation rates, but renewed efforts to restore previously degraded forests that generated revenue for their economies.
What did these two verdant countries have in common? Both have imposed taxes on carbon emissions.
Economists and scientists agree that carbon taxes help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating an incentive for people to use less fossil fuels. But that’s not all they can do, as we and our co-authors – ministers from both countries – note in an essay published in the journal Nature.
Carbon taxes are also effective at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions created by the destruction of tropical rainforests, making them even more critical to addressing the climate crisis.
If tropical deforestation were a country, it would be the world’s largest emitter after China and the United States. Moreover, tropical rainforests remove carbon from the atmosphere: The Amazon, for example absorbs five percent of global carbon emissions every year.
This means that when we cut down our rainforests, we also eliminate one of our best tools for addressing the climate crisis.
But in both Colombia and Costa Rica, deforestation rates are down, while revenues to fund forest restoration efforts are up.
The programmes have different structures but similar impacts. Since 1997, Costa Rica’s carbon tax has helped to protect and restore lands across a quarter of the country. It generates $26.5 million in revenue every year, which the government then pays out to farmers and landowners that commit to rainforest protection or restoration on their property.
Meanwhile, Colombia’s programme has generated more than $250 million in revenue over the past three years. More than a quarter of that revenue goes toward environmental causes such as reducing deforestation and monitoring protected areas.
These programmes also offer a counterpoint to the argument that carbon taxes disproportionately impact people with lower incomes.
In Costa Rica, the government helps lower-income residents to complete their applications, and it prioritises lower-income regions when distributing payments. As a result, two out of every five people who receive a payment from the programme live below the poverty line.
We wanted to see what would happen if other countries adopted similar policies, so we analysed their potential impact on 12 countries with tropical rainforests across Africa, Asia and South America.
Our model found that if all 12 countries adopted a policy like Colombia’s, these countries would collectively generate $1.8 billion every year. If they decided to adopt an even more ambitious proposal in the face of increasing global emissions, their revenue would soar to nearly $13 billion — equivalent to the GDP of Nicaragua.
Either scenario would have a profound impact on protection and restoration efforts. Countries facing the biggest threats from deforestation, like Indonesia, would have robust funding streams to help restore devastated landscapes.
Other countries, like Mexico and Malaysia, would be able to better monitor their protected areas. And every country would reduce the public’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Our research shows that a carbon tax is one of the most effective investments a country can make, and a particularly easy initiative for countries with existing carbon offset programs like Peru and Ecuador.
It offers a powerful tool for governments to fight deforestation, reduce emissions and support rural communities. Governments should consider it, and international institutions should encourage it.
Science tells us that humanity has about a decade to change course and avoid a worst-case climate scenario. A carbon tax in tropical countries would go a long way to that end — while helping those who are most vulnerable to climate impacts.
No comments:
Post a Comment