17 October 2016, Climate Home, Rich nations on course to miss 2020 climate finance goal. The world’s richest countries are on course to miss a target to mobilise US$100 billion of climate funds a year by 2020, a new report by the UK and Australian governments has revealed. It forecasts a total of $93 billion a year will be delivered by the end of the decade to help poorer nations invest in green energy and prepare for future climate change impacts. The 27-page report, released on Monday, says that figure could soar to a best-case scenario of $133 billion if public funds start to leverage more private sector support in the coming years. “The projection should be considered a conservative, indicative aggregation of public climate finance levels in 2020, rather than a firm prediction,” say the governments. The figures are based on analysis of global climate finance flows by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It comes just under a month before the UN’s major climate summit of 2016 opens for business in Marrakech, Morocco, with finance high on the agenda. Last week, UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa urged the world’s rich nations to come prepared with a plan to make good their 2009 promise to deliver $100 billion a year by 2020. While small compared to the $286 billion renewables investments through 2015, the $100 billion number is seen as a barometer for the commitment of wealthy governments to meet their promises. Under the OECD’s new projections, funding solely from governments including the US and EU-28 and development banks will tip $67 billion by 2020, up from $41bn in 2014. It then adds the amount of green finance from banks, funds and pensions that this could unlock, leading to a final figure closer to $100 billion. Read More here
Category Archives: Global Action Inaction
15 October 21016, Climate Home, UN agrees historic deal to cut HFC greenhouse gases. The climate’s low hanging fruit has been picked – amid some ill-concealed irritation over who gets the sweetest harvest. The Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol to cut the use of potent warming greenhouse gases used in fridges and air conditioning has been described as the single most important step that the world can take to limit global warming. The deal, received with a round of applause in the early hours of Saturday, has delivered on most of the promises made by the member countries last week, getting the world on track to avoid almost 0.5C warming by 2100. Between 2020 and 2050, 70 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, comparable to the emissions of nearly 500 million cars, will be prevented from entering the atmosphere thanks to a progressive reduction of HFCs. These super pollutants trap thousands of times more heat than carbon dioxide, and are the world’s fastest growing group of greenhouse gases. “The amendment means a lot to us,” said Rwandan negotiator Juliet Kabera. “It fosters commitment towards climate change mitigation globally, even if Rwanda is not a big consumer of HFCs. Championing this cause puts us in a leadership position which makes us very proud”. The complex architecture of the agreement reflects the different economic and development needs of three main party groups. While developed countries have frozen their HFCs consumption last year and are now aiming at reducing HFCs by 10% by 2019, most developing countries will be freezing their consumption in 2024, and achieve a 10% reduction in 2029. Read More here
6 October 2016, The Conversation, Paris climate agreement comes into force: now time for Australia to step up. The Paris climate agreement is set to enter into force next month after the European Union and Canada ratified the agreement overnight. The agreement, reached last December, required ratification by at least 55 countries accounting for 55% of global emissions to become operational.
Why has ratification been so quick? The optimists would point to this as evidence of mounting international momentum. A truly global agreement and joint ratification by China and the US have reinvigorated international efforts. India, Canada and the EU have followed shortly after the US and China. Canada also recently announced a domestic carbon tax of C$10. Ratification is not action per se, though, and it’s difficult to directly link the domestic actions of Canada and others to Paris. The more realistic explanation for the ratification landslide is less inspiring. The Paris Agreement is so weak in terms of legal obligations that countries have little reason not to ratify it. The legal obligations of the Paris Agreement are sparse and procedural. Countries are bound to submit increasingly stringent pledges every five years. Yet they are not obliged to achieve them.
What about Australian ratification? Australia has yet to ratify the Paris Agreement, but will likely do so soon. Australian ratification of international treaties is done through the executive, not the parliament. Prime Minister Turnbull makes the final decision as to whether Australia will ratify the Paris Agreement. Turnbull will not act alone; his decision will be advised by cabinet and the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). This is a cross-party committee made up of members from the Senate and the House of Representatives. JSCOT is considering the Paris Agreement and will hold its final public briefing in Melbourne today. Shortly thereafter it will report back to parliament. Given that Paris implies few obligations, Australia will likely ratify the agreement before the end of the year. Not doing so would unnecessarily risk Australia’s already tattered reputation on climate change. Yet there are also fears that Australia risks embarrassment by ratifying and then missing its first pledge.
Target troubles: Currently, Australia has made an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to reduce emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030. If Australia joins the Paris Agreement this would likely become our first pledge under the deal. But existing modelling suggests we will significantly overshoot this target.Climate Action Tracker estimates that Australia is instead on track to increase emissions above 27% on 2005 levels by 2030 (this equates to 61% above 1990 levels). They note: “Australia stands out as having the largest relative gap between current policy projections for 2030 and the INDC target.” Read More here
6 October 2016, Climate News Network, Climate treaty races towards hazy future. The far-reaching Paris Agreement on tackling climate change is close to taking effect − but how just how effective it may prove is far from clear. With a speed almost unknown in the annals of diplomacy, the Paris Agreement on climate change is ready to come into force a bare 11 months after it was reached on 12 December last year. Its ratification by the European Union means the world will have crossed both thresholds necessary for the Agreement to enter into force within 30 days. …It’s too early either to make so sweeping a claim or to write off Paris as a well-meaning attempt that was too little and too late. But the reality the Agreement has to tackle is daunting. For instance, the targets identified in Paris may have been seriously inadequate. We may already be much closer to exceeding the safety level for emissions than we realise, and there is still no guarantee that trapping and storing emitted carbon dioxide would work, although it is judged to be an essential technology for Paris to succeed. And some scientists say the world will have to switch to renewable energy far faster than we are doing at the moment for the Paris Agreement to have a chance of working. With a list of challenges like these, it would be premature to start celebrating the Agreement’s entry into force just yet. Dr Niklas Höhne, a founding partner of the NewClimate Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability, spoke for many when he said: “With the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, the work is only just beginning. “For 1.5°C in particular, the window of opportunity is closing rapidly. Waiting until 2018, when the next round of revised national proposals are expected to be presented, will be too late.” Read More here