26 February 2016, Climate News Network, US blocks India’s solar power plan. World trade regulations have been invoked by the US to challenge India’s ambitious programme to expand massively its renewable energy capacity and provide local jobs. India has been told that it cannot go ahead as planned with its ambitious plan for a huge expansion of its renewable energy sector, because it seeks to provide work for Indian people. The case against India was brought by the US. The ruling, by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), says India’s National Solar Mission − which would create local jobs, while bringing electricity to millions of people − must be changed because it includes a domestic content clause requiring part of the solar cells to be produced nationally. What a difference two months make. On 12 December last year, US President Barack Obama praised the Paris Agreement on tackling climate change, just hours after it was finally concluded. “We’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one,” he said, adding that the agreement “represents the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got”. Clear-cut victory The WTO says that its dispute settlement panel “handed the US a clear-cut victory . . . when it found that local content requirements India imposed on private solar power producers in a massive solar project violated trade rules, although the two sides are still discussing a potential settlement to the dispute”. One official of India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy told India Climate Dialogue that the ruling might make the country’s solar plan more expensive, and would definitely hit domestic manufacturing and, consequently, the possibility of creating jobs in the sector. Read More here
Category Archives: Equity & Social justice
22 February 2016, Renew Economy, Failure to include health risks grossly distorts true costs of climate change. Climate change is above all a question of public health. Although spared from famine and civil disruption that will afflict other countries, Australians increasingly will be exposed to the effects of extreme weather patterns consequent to our heating climate, and they will as a result suffer more ill health requiring attention from GPs and hospitals. Heat waves lead to heat stroke, increase heart attacks, cause dehydration and threaten those with renal impairment; fires threaten life in so many ways; floods and wild storms can cause drownings and other injuries; and all these events lead to distress and affect long-term mental well-being. Children especially, but also adults, can suffer from sleep disturbances, aggressive behaviour, sadness, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder. Children are also vulnerable to extreme weather events because such events interrupt their safety, their sense of security and their access to the outside world. Hotter days will bring more asthma, and, in some localities, more exposure to local mosquito-born infectious diseases. This cannot be what we want for our children. Disturbingly, our health system infrastructure and resources can also be affected by more severe and frequent extreme weather events, thus potentially limiting their ability to provide care when it is needed most. For example, in the heat wave before the Black Saturday bushfires, 25 per cent of all hospitals had problems with their air-conditioning or cooling systems. Political leaders, by ignoring the impacts of global warming on health, have hindered public discourse and concerted action on climate change despite the urgency to act. The failure to include health costs distorts the costs to families and communities, as well as the bottom line on already-stretched health budgets. What is already well known by economists, for example, is that the health costs of coal and fossil fuel burning increase societal costs of electricity (double or more by some estimates) – surely an incentive to escape from the fossil fuel addiction. The Morwell coalmine fire in Victoria would be another route by which society is damaged by use of fossil fuels. As a medical organisation, Doctors for the Environment Australia is frustrated by the dismal failure of governments and our senior leaders to include the health risks and costs in the numerous discussions on climate change. Read More here
8 February 2016, Climate Home, US military to war game climate change threats. US military planners have been ordered to war game climate change scenarios, focusing on “geopolitical and socioeconomic instability” linked to extreme weather. A new directive says forces need to undertake joint training exercises with allies to “enhance capacity” and “improve tactics” for tackling impacts linked to global warming. “Mission planning and execution must include identification and assessment of the effects of climate change on the DoD [department of defence] mission,” it reads. Under DOD DIRECTIVE 4715.21 chiefs of staff, equipment buyers and health advisers will need to integrate climate change into any new purchases, missions or infrastructure plans. The document, which is signed off by Robert Work, deputy secretary of Defense, calls for greater work with climate scientists to “reduce risk and promote mission execution.” Planners must “integrate climate change considerations into mission area analyses and acquisition strategies across the life cycle of weapons systems, platforms, and equipment.” Medical staff will need to update training to “address effects on personnel, including changes in extreme temperatures, precipitation patterns, and disease vector distribution.” Despite stiff opposition from many Republicans, the Pentagon has released a stream of climate-related warnings, research and adopted new clean energy policies in the past eight years. In 2014 chiefs of staff said it was “overwhelmingly clear” that climate change posed a security risk to the country. Last year the NATO military alliance war-gamed the use of wind and solar energy systems, while the US Navy recently launched a ‘Green Fleet’ partly powered by biofuels. Read More here
January 2016, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): With the release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) last fall, a debate has been growing over the so-called “trade” agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries. Should governments ratify the deal? Will it expand trade in a significant way? Who will be the winners and losers? But defining winners and losers only in trade terms will miss the much broader impacts of the TPP and hide the broader basis required for assessing its real impacts. In Canada, where IISD is headquartered, Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has initiated formal consultations on the TPP, promising it is open for full discussion. This is a welcome initiative. For IISD, this is a deal too far and its ratification should be rejected by the minister. In its place, there is a need to fundamentally re-consider the role that trade and investment agreements make to supporting inclusive and sustainable growth. This commentary summarizes IISD’s concerns with the TPP, and a follow up article will begin outlining solutions. Read More here