Background of JA’s climate justice work: We have been working on what is now called ‘dirty energy’ issues for over 15 years, struggling against waste incineration in the industrial hub of Mozambique (at that time with Livaningo), and opposing a proposed mega-dam Mphanda Nkuwa on the Zambezi river. For the past 5+ years, we have also supported communities in Tete province who are affected by open-pit coal mining from companies such as Vale, Rio Tinto and Jindal. We researched the effects of oil exploration in Cabo Delgado province in Northern Mozambique and supported fisher communities who were adversely affected. We challenge the government’s plan to exploit the biggest gas field discovered in the last 10 years worldwide, which is also in Northern Mozambique. We continue these and many other fights. We understand that our fights against dirty energy are intimately connected with climate change. Mozambique has zero historical responsibility for climate change, yet our low-lying country has already faced devastating floods in the last few years, with the promise of more destruction to come. Mozambique did not create the climate crisis, yet, we have over 80% of our people who have no access to electricity. They all deserve a life of dignity and the right to energy. However, instead of committing to a sustainable, low-carbon future for its communities and for the world, Mozambique government is doing the exact opposite. The country is set to rapidly exploit and export its huge reserves of coal and natural gas, which will have a very negative impact on the global climate crisis. Just in 2012, Mozambique exported around 5 million tons of coal. If all this coal is burnt, which is likely, just this one year’s coal production of Mozambique could increase greenhouse gas emissions by 11 million tons! Mozambique is already contributing to the problem instead of the solution. In August 2013, we held a conference in Maputo on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) as a false solution to climate change, which was a huge success. It was attended by almost 80 people from all over Mozambique and all over the world. We hope this year’s conference will further deepen the debate on climate change. African context: Africans will be hit hard by climate change, more droughts, floods and failing agriculture. We will face more energy and food crises. Already last year in Mozambique, hundreds of thousands were displaced by floods and 2015 started with the same unfortunate news of large-scale floods, villages destroyed, bridges fallen, etc. We didn’t create this problem, but will be affected by it, so we must strengthen our voice to demand a change. Since colonial times to today, Africa has remained a source of raw materials. Even today, resources are mined, taken by train to the ports and out of the continent. Africa
has been called the 2nd fastest growing region in the world, second only to Asia. However, who is this growth benefiting? The development pathway that most African states are following follows the same old models of extractivism, oil and gas exports, export-oriented development and no consideration of the poorest and most vulnerable people on the continent, only the elites. The dominant economic model never ever served Africa’s people, so now is the time to demand a transformation, a new model. ￼￼￼￼￼ Situation of global climate justice work: Since Africa hosted the COP17 in Durban in 2011, the situation of climate change has worsened and the worst polluters have increased their pollution instead of reducing it, as we predicted said would happen. In September 2014, world leaders met in New York at the Ban ki Moon Summit, pretending to make ambitious emissions reductions pledges, but instead their actions were totally inadequate and not in line with science or equity. Similarly at the COP in Lima last year and in Paris in 2015, it is becoming quite clear that governments, especially developed country governments will deliberately fall far short of what they need to do. However, across the world, people are rising up to fight climate change, to fight dirty energy, and to demand transformation of energy and food systems. People are fighting the false solutions like carbon markets and giving the real solutions instead. This conference aims to be part of this movement-building process. Background of JA!: JA! works on the environmental and social impacts of Mozambique’s uncontrolled and unsustainable development path. We focus on raising public awareness and providing research and support to local civil society faced about environmental/social threats. We support communities by providing strategic and technical advice, information and capacity-building. We seek to build the community voice by facilitating links between communities facing similar environmental problems, supporting community campaigns including negotiations with industry, access to government decision-makers and officials, and access to the media, and also elevating local community struggles to the national and international levels. Objectives of the Conference: 1. To bring together community members & farmers from all 9 provinces in Mozambique who are facing the threat of climate change as well as threats of dirty energy, landgrabbing etc, together with activists working on international climate justice movementbuilding, along with Mozambican government officials and communities and movements from southern Africa. 2. To deepen the understanding of southern African communities, civil society and government officials on the issues of climate change, dirty energy and false solutions. 3. To consider issues of energy poverty and lack of energy access in Africa and elsewhere, from the perspective of a low-carbon, climate safe, equitable and democratic path of development. 4. To contribute one piece to the global movement-building effort to reclaim our power, to demand a transformation of energy and food systems, in Mozambique, Africa and across the world. 5. To start developing a plan for collective actions in the road to Paris 2015 and beyond with more active involvement of Mozambican civil society.
Articles Southern Demands for A Science-based, Just and Fair Sharing of Global Efforts to Confront the Climate Crisis
Lima COP20 Key Messages
Green Economy: The Long Suicide
Food and Climate
Africa Proposal on Energy
If We Dig Out All Our Fossil Fuels, Here’s How Hot We Can Expect It to Get
Vale sounds ‘alert’ over Mozambique coal sector
Interview with Meena Raman by ALAI magazine before Lima COP20
Halting Intentional Climate Inaction
Southern Demands for A Science-based, Just and Fair Sharing of Global Efforts to Confront the Climate Crisis In the face of multiple struggles to build a new and better world, the climate crisis is one of most urgent challenges confronting all of our peoples. To stabilize the Earth’s climate system, prevent planetary catastrophe and secure a safe, sustainable, just and equitable future, we must fight for comprehensive social, economic, and political transformation in our countries and globally. Current levels of global warming – 0.8 degrees Celsius from pre-‐industrial levels -‐ is already causing massive destruction, displacement and loss of lives, and worse impacts in the near future is already certain. We are fighting to prevent much worse, and it is a fight we cannot afford to lose. People are waging this fight in every dimension of their lives -‐-‐ food, energy, health and security, jobs and livelihoods -‐-‐ defending their rights, the communities and the commons, and asserting people driven solutions and alternatives. These alternatives recognize there must be a redistribution of power and wealth, a shift to sustainable systems of extraction and production, and a limit to the consumption of resources if we are to live well, with justice and dignity and in harmony with nature. The latest report from the Inter-‐governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is telling us that with timely and sufficient global climate actions there is still a chance to keep warming to below 2.0 degrees Celsius – the official target ceiling of the international climate talks – and even below 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is the maximum ceiling acceptable for many of us given the loss and damage posed by further climate impacts. The IPCC report also confirms that the window of time that allows for the possibility of keeping global temperature to below 1.5 or 2 degrees is short and quickly closing. Now more than ever, we need to intensify and speed up our efforts to build our power and fight for a fundamental transformation of the system. While we are fighting to transform the system, we urgently need to win immediate and concrete victories that will enable our people to deal with current as well as future inevitable impacts of climate change, and victories that translate to significant reductions in emissions that will keep us on track to preventing catastrophic climate change. In this light, and as part of broader struggles, we are fighting for the following demands for fair, just and equitable sharing of ambitious and adequate global efforts to confront the climate crisis: 1. We demand that ALL governments commit to • a global goal of limiting warming to the safest levels still possible based on science • a pathway and targets for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reductions that will make it possible to achieve this goal without potentially devastating geoengineering • a fair and equitable sharing of the global emissions budget and the effort to keep within the budget, based on science, historical responsibility and capacity and without loopholes and offsets The science shows that there is a definite limit to GHG emissions the earth can take to keep below these ceilings. This limit, referred to as a “global emissions budget,” has already been largely consumed, mostly by elites, corporations, and the “developed” countries of the North. This historical overconsumption is the core driver of the climate crisis, and represents the climate debt owed to people and communities who have not been responsible for the crisis but bear its worst impacts.
To avoid overshooting the limited remaining budget and to have a good chance of keeping below 1.5 degrees Celsius without resorting to untested and potentially devastating geo-‐ engineering technologies, the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions must take place at the scale and pace that would • Limit global GHG emissions from 2014onward to a total of, at most 700 gigatons. This is the remainder of the “global emissions budget” which, starting in the 1800s, was no more than 3000 gigatons. • Pursue a “pathway” of reductions that would make this limit possible. Drastic reductions are urgently needed in the immediate future to have a chance of keeping within the remainder of the budget. Thus, global GHG emissions by 2030 must be at least 26% lower than 1990 levels, and by 2050 should be at least 71% lower than 1990 levels. This means that by 2020 – in less than 6 years -‐ GHG emissions should be at least 15.5% lower than current levels. The current most ambitious pledges are still far short of these targets. The limited remaining “global emissions budget”, and the effort to keep within this budget, should be shared equitably taking into account historical responsibility and capacity and repayment of climate debt. 2. We demand that governments of the North, of “developed countries”, stop further delays and deception, and commit to and deliver fully and unequivocally their fair share of the effort to solve climate change, ensure a full repayment of the climate debt owed to the peoples of the South, and shift to sustainable and equitable economies through just transitions Current Northern or “developed country” pledges for mitigation actions and climate finance – such as the recent pronouncements by the U.S. – are still very short of their fair share, of fulfilling their obligations. The bigger the shortfall in the fulfilment of mitigation obligations in the North, the greater the suffering in the South. We demand that governments of the North, of “developed” countries commit to and comply with domestic mitigation targets that represent the full extent of their capacity to carry out domestic mitigation through just transitions and without loopholes, offsets and geo-‐engineering. However, their accumulated excessive GHG emissions are so huge that even extremely ambitious domestic actions will not be enough to fulfil their fair share of the effort. Therefore, we demand that they also commit to and deliver adequate, additional climate finance and technology that will make it possible for the remainder of their mitigation obligations to be undertaken in the South. This should be separate from and in addition to climate finance and technology for adaptation, and reparations for loss and damage owed to the peoples of the South. The pledge of annual $100 billion should be the floor not the ceiling, should be additional to other commitments, and transfers should start immediately. Climate finance should be public, non debt creating and should go directly to peoples of the South. The $9.3 billion so far pledged in the GCF is shockingly dismal to say the least, not only for the paltry amount, but because there are persistent intentions to deliver these funds to big corporations and private financial intermediaries. 3. We demand that governments of the South, of ‘developing’ countries, stop following the same path of profit-led, destructive high carbon growth that benefit only the elites and taken by the North, by ‘developed’ countries. Instead they should shift to equitable, just and sustainable development pathways, start taking on South countries’ fair share of the global effort, and be unrelenting in claiming climate finance and technology from Northern governments for Southern countries to undertake mitigation actions over and beyond their own fair share of the global effort. Thus far, Southern or “developing” countries bear far less and for many like the Least
Developed Countries hardly any historical responsibility for the climate crisis. However, the business-‐as-‐usual projections of governments of developing countries show that all will reach a point of exceeding their fair share of the global emissions budget. This will come sooner for some countries than others, with Least Developed Countries (LDCs) taking a much longer time. All Southern or “developing” countries should shift as quickly as possible to more equitable, just and sustainable pathways. Even as they should double the intensity of their demands for deep and drastic cuts from the North, they should also take on the GHG emissions reductions necessary to avoid exceeding their fair share of the global carbon budget – this constitutes their fair share of the global effort. They must commit to clear long term emissions reductions goals. This means, among other actions, desisting from starting new projects that will lock in developing countries to dirty fossil fuel energy for decades. Developing countries are also compelled to assume part of the mitigation obligations of developed countries, the part which the developed countries can no longer achieve, even with extremely ambitious domestic actions. Because our peoples are the first to suffer and suffer the worst of the impacts of lack of action, Southern governments must not waver in demanding climate finance and technology from developed country governments in order to undertake mitigation actions with just transition, over and beyond the fair share of developing countries. And they must similarly demand the climate finance owed by developed countries to enable peoples of the South to deal with adaptation, loss and damage to climate change’s impacts. We also demand governments of the South ensure that the “right to sustainable development” and “development space” being invoked in the international climate negotiations is really for the people and communities of the South and not for private big business and elites. 4. We demand that mitigation commitments by all governments be immediately translated into concrete policies for transformation of energy systems away from fossil fuel. Global reduction of GHG emissions require a rapid transformation of energy systems. Governments should begin with an immediate ban on new fossil fuel projects, a stop to the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, immediate reduction of energy consumption by elites and corporation, a swift and just transition to renewable and clean energy for people and communities, and delivery of climate finance and technology for this to happen in the South. 5. We demand all governments to put a stop to false solutions to the climate crisis In the face of the climate crisis -‐-‐ saving the system rather than changing the system has been the predictable response from the world’s elites, their corporations, and the governments and institutions they dominate. They continue to delay actions and insist on solutions that do not address the causes and instead are mainly aimed at generating profits and capitalizing on peoples’ suffering. Many of these false solutions commodify nature and deepen corporate capture of the commons. We say no more further delays, no more deception, no more false solutions. We are movements and organizations from the South, engaged in many struggles for the survival of our people, for a better world. We are determined to step up our efforts in the multitude of spaces in which to fight for and demand climate justice at the local, national, regional and global levels to get at the root cause of the climate crisis.
LIMA COP 20 KEY MESSAGES
OUR KEY MESSAGES 1. We are facing a planetary emergency: floods, storms, droughts and rising seas are already causing devastation. The risk of runaway climate breakdown draws ever closer. Around the world people and communities are paying the cost of our governments’ continued inaction with their livelihoods and lives. 2. The world’s richest, developed countries are most responsible for climate change. They emitted the biggest share of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere today, way more than their fair share. They must urgently make the deepest emission cuts and provide most money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change. 3. At their latest UN talks in Lima, our governments are offering nothing more than empty false solutions, including expanded carbon markets, REDD and weak voluntary pledges of emissions cuts. Our governments’ inaction is very clear: they are have been failing to create a strong and equitable climate agreement at the UN for 20 years and their baby steps in Lima do not take us in the right direction. They are setting themselves up for failure at the 2015 Paris climate summit. 4. Real solutions to the climate crisis exist. They include stopping fossil fuels, building clean, sustainable, community-based power solutions, steep reductions in carbon emissions, transforming our food systems, and stopping deforestation. The movement for true alternatives grows bigger and stronger day by day, and the demands of the climate justice movement must be at the heart of climate solutions. 5. The UN climate negotiations are massively compromised because the corporate polluters who fund and create dirty energy are in the negotiating halls and have our governments in their pockets. We must stop the corporate takeover of UN climate negotiations by those corporate polluters.
Green Economy: The Long Suicide Introduction On 10th May 2013 a major marker on the highway to climate change catastrophe was passed. t‘his milestone caused the Secretary of the united nations body dealing with climate change to declare The world must wake up and take note of what this means for human security, human welfare and economic development. In the face of clear and present danger, we need a policy response which truly rises to the challenge. The Green Economy is the response by Governments around the world. The problem is that the Green Economy is not the solution and, worse, they know it isn’t. So the question is why, when the world is rushing towards an unprecedented global catastrophe threatening the very existence of humankind, are seemingly intelligent and democratically elected governments offering a solution they know is making the problem even worse? Why do governments accept the science of climate change but then ignore the same science in practice? “Green jobs give a sense of reality to this illusionary comfort. It is only as an answer to climate change that green jobs deceive us. Climate Jobs are the real answer to climate change. The problem is that Climate Jobs are very few in number” More specifically, the booklet seeks to demonstrate that the Green Economy is at best a fairy tale governments would like to believe; at worst, it is a deliberate lie intended to mislead. Both the good and bad versions serve the same purpose: there is a very real economy and it is this economy that causes climate change. But this cannot be admitted, so there is the need for the idea of an new and different Green Economy. this idea provides the comfort that something is being done to stop the climate change catastrophe. Green jobs give a sense of reality to this illusionary comfort because we all know what a job is, even if we are unemployed. it is only as an answer to climate change that green jobs deceive us. climate Jobs, on the other hand, are the real answer to climate change. the problem here is that climate Jobs are very few in number, which is why climate change continues to get worse. the political challenge is therefore to make governments and other public bodies create climate Jobs and to do so in the numbers required by the challenge of climate change. This might sound rather confusing but there’s no need to worry. Read on to see how simple the story actually is. The Green economy – What it is and isn’t Green is the new good. But green can also be a disguise for something far from green. So what is the Green Economy? Before we can say anything about the green economy,
we need to know something about climate change. We need to know at least that: ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Factual Foundation • Climate change is not new, as it has occurred a number of times during the earth’s long history. The climate change that concerns us, however, is entirely new: unlike all other climate changes, which are naturally caused, this one is made by people and is a consequence of industrialisation, the large-scale use of machinery by big factories and corporations and by us in our individual small- scale use. • Industrialisation, beginning in Britain in the 1750s and now covering the world, requires huge amounts of energy to drive the machines and the gadgets we use. This energy comes mainly from fossil fuels – coal, gas and oil • They are called greenhouse gasses after Green Houses used long ago in Europe to capture heat during the European winter for growing plants that would otherwise have died of the cold. Greenhouse gasses form a layer around our planet that allows heat from the sun to reach the earth but, like a blanket, restrict the return of the heat to space thus resulting in a build up of heat on earth. The effect is the same as the build up of heat inside a car with all doors and windows closed. • Fossil fuels automatically release greenhouse gasses – mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) • It is this heat that is responsible for global warming • Global warming seriously interferes with the earth’s natural climate. • The outcome of this interference is the climate change that now threatens all existing forms of life, including us. This climate change causes (a) sea levels to rise to levels that threaten the world’s coastal areas, and (b) the unnatural and rapid increase in the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, heat waves and floods. The claims... The green economy (supposedly) saves us from the catastrophe of climate change in two ways, both of which are intended to reduce the use of fossil fuels and thereby the creation of the greenhouse gasses responsible for the global warming that fuels climate change. First, the green economy is the economy based on renewable energy (RE). RE does not use the carbon-based, fossil fuels responsible for greenhouse gasses. RE comes from the sun, wind, waves, ocean currents and tides that will last for as long as the earth itself. In the language of climate change, RE allows for ‘mitigation’ – the transition to a lowcarbon, if not no-carbon, economy. Second, during the time it takes to establish an economy based mainly on RE, other measures must be taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels. These measures must reduce greenhouse gasses to their minimum by greatly increasing energy efficiency. This involves
• making things to use less energy but with the same results - changing incandescent light bulbs to long-life (CFL) ones, for instance • recycling what would otherwise be throw-away materials • conserving (fossil fuel) energy in a multitude of ways, such as promoting the largescale use of public transport, retrofitting existing houses with ceilings and requiring all new buildings to be designed to conserve energy in both winter and summer. This is the internationally agreed ‘climate resilient’ and ‘adaptation’ part of the dual mitigation/adaptation strategy to climate change. By good fortune, the green economy also creates a large number of jobs, when unemployment is a growing global disgrace, apart from countries – like South Africa – where mass unemployment is a longstanding, normal way of life. The green economy is therefore both the response to climate change, an urgent economic stimulus and the creator of millions of green jobs. This would seem to be the perfect win-win-win situation. But the problem is getting worse Alas, like many things hard to believe, the green economy is a mirage. it most certainly hasn’t worked; climate change is getting worse. no less a world authority than Professor James hansen is well placed to know. hansen, until recently, director of the nASA Goddard institute for Space studies in the uS has been driven to despair by the failure of the green economy to reduce greenhouse gas. Writing last year, in an article entitled, ‘Climate Change Is Here And Worse Than We thought’, He revealed the findings of a major scientific study: Our new study...makes clear that while average global temperature has been steadily rising due to a warming climate, the extremes are actually becoming much more frequent and more intense worldwide. This is the world we have changed, and now we have to live in it - the world that caused the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed more than 50,000 people and the 2011 drought in Texas that caused more than $5 billion in damage. Such events, our data show, will become even more frequent and more severe. The future is now. And it is hot. But neither the future nor the heat has much influence in the corporations and parliaments around the world. The Fact or Fantasy of a Pure Green Economy The United Nations provides an official view of what the Green Economy is and what can be expected from it. Besides being “low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive”, The Green Economy produces “improved human well-being and social equity, while
significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities”. The green economy claims to be everything the non-green economy isn’t. Thus, the low carbon claim of the green economy is confronted by the high carbon reality of the non- green economy. Similarly, the green economy’s social inclusiveness and equity – to pick only two of its many social claims – are challenged by the reality of the inequality and social exclusiveness that characterise globalisation. this sharp contrast between the desirability of the one and the unpleasantness of the other is not a coincidence. Breathing life into the green economy are all the features that makes the non-green economy so unwelcome. in this way, the Green Economy becomes the home of many fanciful-though-ideal wishes. The green economy achieves this by implicitly presenting itself as an entirely new, standalone economic sector magically untouched by the non-green economy. this view of the essential difference or separateness between the two economies is mostly unconscious. In advance of the more detailed explanations that follow, it is important to bear in mind that the Green Economy is neither separate nor new. rather, it is simply an extension of the same economic system that is responsible for climate change. this system is one in which the competition for profit leads to unending and limitless compound growth. The Green Economy simply extends this competition for profit into activities associated with clearing up and containing ecological destruction. it does not challenge or supplant the fossil fuel economy. instead it provides ideological cover for the reproduction and continuation of that economy. it does this by creating the illusion that something is being done about climate change. But the impact the green economy has on reducing and mitigating climate change is totally insignificant compared to what is needed to prevent a terrible global crisis affecting both the whole of humanity and the planet. the green economy distracts us from the radical changes that are needed to prevent this from happening. in that way, it is part of the problem, not the solution. A much longer version with references is available from the AIDC
How the industrial food system c
Between 44% and 57% of all GHG emiss
Before the planting starts, the bulld job. Worldwide, industrial agricultu into savannas, wetlands and forests under huge amounts of land. The FA expansion of the agricultural frontie 70-90% of global deforestation, at that for the production of a few agr commodities for export. Agricultur to deforestation thus accounts for 1 global GHG emissions.
Other-non food related emissions: 43-56%
Freezing & Retail: 2-4%
The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, thrown out on the long journey from farms to traders, to food processors, and eventually to retailers and restaurants. A lot of this waste rots on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of GHGs. Between 3.5-4.5% of global GHG emissions come from waste, and over 90% of these are produced by materials originating within the food system.
Refrigeration is the lynchpin of the modern supermarket and fast food chains' vast global procurement systems. Wherever the industrial food system goes, so do cold chains. Considering that cooling is responsible for 15 percent of all electricity consumption worldwide, and that leaks of chemical refrigerants are a major source of GHGs, we can safely say that the refrigeration of foods accounts for some 1-2% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. The retailing of foods accounts for another 1-2%.
contributes to the climate crisis
sions come from the global food system
dozers do their ure is pushing s, ploughing FAO says the er accounts for t least half of ricultural re's contribution 15-18% of
Farming: 11-15% It is generally acknowledged that farming itself contributes 11-15% of all greenhouse gasses produced globally. Most of these emissions result from the use of industrial inputs, such as chemical fertilisers and petrol to run tractors and irrigation machinery, as well as the excess manure generated by intensive livestock keeping.
Transport: 5-6% The industrial food system acts like a global travel agency. Crops for animal feed may be grown in Argentina and fed to chickens in Chile that are exported to China for processing and eventually eaten in a McDonald's in the US. Much of our food, grown under industrial conditions in faraway places, travels thousands of kilometres before it reaches our plates. We can conservatively estimate that the transportation of food accounts for a quarter of global GHG emissions linked to transportation, or 5-6% of all global GHG emissions.
Processing & Packing: 8-10% Processing is the next, highly profitable, step in the industrial food chain. The transformation of foods into ready-made meals, snacks and beverages requires an enormous amount of energy, mostly in the form of carbon. So does the packaging and canning of these foods. Processing and packaging enables the food industry to stack the shelves of supermarkets and convenience stores with hundreds of different formats and brands, but it also generates a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions â€“ some 8 to 10% of the global total.
Food sovereignty: 5 steps to cool the planet and feed its people: http://grain.org/e/5102
Submission by the Republic of Sudan on behalf of the African Group on ADP Workstream 2
Establishment of a global partnership to accelerate the Energy Transformation required for a well below 2째 Celsius World by supporting renewable energy feed-in tariffs and other incentives. 1. Africa welcomes the opportunity to engage under the ADP Workstream 2 on exploring options to accelerate and scale-up the transition to clean energy in developing countries while simultaneously promoting development through incentives such as, but not exclusively, feed in tariffs for renewable energy (REFiTs)1. 2. Africa and other developing countries face tremendous immediate development challenges that are of primary concern. Increasing energy production and enhancing access to electricity is at the core of these challenges and is an imperative. From a climate mitigation and economic diversification perspective the challenge is to ensure this expansion of electricity can be made, to the extent possible, and in a sustainable manner. 3. The transition to clean renewable energy sources must ensure national ownership, guarantee locally adapted and controlled energy solutions, enhance adaptation capacity, stimulate job creation and lead to thriving local economies and industries, and helps achieving sustainable development. 4. As a practical response to the above concerns, in particular the acceleration and scaling-up of the increase of clean and renewable energy in the energy mix, the African Group proposes that Parties through a dedicated platform initiate rounds of in-depth assessments followed by interactive discussions and deliberations, on inter alia: a. the range and mix of relevant country or region specific incentives, such as but not exclusively restricted to nationally determined and appropriate renewable energy feed-in tariffs schemes b. the quantification of mitigation, adaptation and other development co-benefits achieved per different scale of finance and per incentive and mix combinations; c. how best to implement the highest beneficially achieved mix in a country owned manner. d. needs and means for capacity building, technology access and financing, in accordance with the principles of CBDR, to enable these mixes of incentives. e. The barriers (financial, technological, institutional and legal) impeding the dissemination of renewable Energy Technologies (RETs) and removal of theses barriers f. Availability of financial and technical support and international investments to support developing countries plans g. Available technologies that would assist developing countries plan for an economic Feed-in Tariffs h. The potential of renewable energy as an enabler for achieving Sustainable development 1 According to REN21, 138 countries had established RE policy targets in 2012, a 27% increase from 2010. More specifically, Feed in tariffs (FiT), renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or quota policies, and biofuel mandates have expanded in recent years: with 99 countries, states or provinces implementing FiTs, 76 with quota policies, and 76 with biofuel mandates in place in 2012.
i. Highlighting relevant experiences, if any, under the CDM 5. By creating a Platform to support systemic exploration of REFiTs and other appropriate incentives, a paradigm shift towards renewable energy can be more readily conceptualized and successfully implemented. Ultimately, the Green Climate Fund could play a pivotal role of providing and catalysing funds (both contributing to upfront capital financing and associated needs for capacity building/planning, as well as funds to cover the tariffs and other incentives). 6. The Platform should furthermore and over time promote and facilitate domestic capacity to manufacture and develop renewable energy technologies in developing countries, thereby stimulating economic development, decreased dependency and local job creation. This platform would also need to ensure access to nationally appropriate renewable energy technologies and capacity building, including sharing of best practices, following a country driven approach and in the context of sustainable development. 7. With this submission the Africa Group encourages all Parties to engage in this constructive and trust-building proposal. As concrete suggestions, we propose the following way forward: a. Deepen current understanding through focused technical discussions on REFiTs and other incentives based on countriesâ€™ experiences, success factors and challenges at the ADP Workstream 2 Technical Workshops during 2014, also drawing on expertise from relevant UN agencies, civil society, renewable energy industry, power industry, and other stakeholders. b. Highlight the role of the technology mechanism in enhancing the transfer of related technologies c. Updated version of the WS2 technical paper, with input from a wide range of actors, to review region specific incentives types and categories; d. A number of developed and developing countries take leadership and build trust by immediately engaging on the topics under Paragraph 4, with the view of setting in motion concrete pilot activities and projects with a view to demonstrate the full potential of such incentives: laying the foundation for rapid and massive scaling-up.
If We Dig Out All Our Fossil Fuels, Here’s How Hot We Can Expect It to Get APRIL 8, 2015 Michael Greenstone for the New York Times
World leaders are once again racing to avert warming through limits on greenhouse gas emissions. An but because of the vast supplies of inexpensive fossil from climate change requires the even more difficult task markets.
disastrous levels of global agreement may be in reach, fuels, protecting the world of disrupting today’s energy
The White House last month released a blueprint to reduce United States emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025. The plan lays the groundwork for the formal international climate talks this December in Paris, where the goal is a treaty on emissions that will seek to limit the rise in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. Beyond 3.6 degrees, scientists say, the most catastrophic climate consequences will occur, possibly including the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Forging a treaty in Paris would be no small task, yet would be just the beginning of a solution. The greater challenge will be deciding how much of the world’s abundant supply of fossil fuels we simply let lie. (Bill McKibben and more recently The Guardian have taken a maximal position in their Leave It in the Ground campaign.) To understand the scope of this challenge, I’ve tallied the projected warming from fossil fuels extracted so far and the projected warming capacity of various fossil fuels that can be extracted with today’s technology. This accounting was done by taking the embedded carbon dioxide in each energy source and using a standard model for the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and longrun temperature changes based on a 2009 Nature article. (More detail on the method is available here.) For those who don’t like suspense, here’s the total: an astonishing 16.2 degrees. And here’s how that breaks down. Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have warmed the planet by about 1.7 degrees. We are already experiencing the consequences of this warming. In recent weeks, we have learned that the world had its warmest winter on record and that Arctic sea ice hit a new low, even as intense storms continue to inflict harm on communities globally. Next, look at fossil fuel reserves, the deposits we know to be recoverable under today’s prices and technology. That is, they are inexpensive to access. If we were to use all of this coal, natural gas and petroleum, the planet would warm by an additional 2.8 degrees. Add the heat from those reserves to the 1.7 degrees from what has already been emitted, and you get a world that is 4.5 degrees warmer since the industrial revolution; this is beyond scientists’ recommended 3.6degree threshold.
The next set of fossil fuels in line is referred to as resources, rather than reserves. The difference is that they are recoverable with today’s technology, but not at current prices. There is 3.1 degrees’ worth of warming if the oil and natural gas in this category are utilized, which would lead to a total increase in global temperatures of 7.6 degrees. This warming does not even consider our coal resources. A middle-of-the-road estimate of the coal that qualifies as resources indicates that its use would lead to an additional increase of 8.6 degrees. Thus, the use of all reserves and resources would lead to a total increase of 16.2 degrees. Today’s climate and planet would very likely be unrecognizable. Without pricing carbon to reflect expected climate damages, all of this coal, oil and natural gas is worth many trillions of dollars, so keeping it in the ground would mean passing up economic opportunities that are waiting to be taken and turning our backs on a long history of going to great lengths to recover these energy sources. A January study in Nature developed estimates of which fuels would have to be abandoned to stay below the 3.6degree threshold. It found that most Canadian tar sands; all Arctic oil and gas; and a significant share of potential shale gas would need to stay locked up. It also found that major coal producers like the United States would need to keep 90 percent of their reserves in the ground. There are essentially only three longrun solutions to the climate challenge. The first is to price carbon emissions to reflect the damages from climate change. In practice, this means pricing carbon in as many parts of the world as possible — and ideally, globally — so that there is a level playing field for all energy sources. There has been important progress in this area, including in the European Union, individual American states and regions (for example, California and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), and parts of China. And there are several ways to introduce carbon pricing, as a New York Times OpEd by David Hayes and James Stock underscored. But we are a long way from a global price on carbon, and the prices in existing carbon markets are lower than the projected damages from increased carbon emissions. The second way to disrupt the energy market is to have lowcarbon energy sources like nuclear, wind and solar become cheaper than their fossil fuel competition. Although there has been much progress in reducing the costs of wind and solar recently, they generally remain more expensive than fossil fuels. Further, the fracking revolution makes it clear that there will be continued technical advances that reduce the costs of recovering fossil fuels. Indeed, it is well known that there are ample supplies of coal deeper beneath the Earth’s surface that do not yet qualify as resources, and there is increasing evidence that energy from methane hydrates may become relevant commercially. In other words, it seems unlikely that today’s low carbon energy sources will play a major role in the solution without significant public investment in research, development and test deployments of new technologies. The third approach is to continue using those fuels, but capture and store the carbon before it is released or pull it out of the atmosphere after its release. Neither approach
has yet been proved to work at scale, and costs remain high. Even if costs come down, it will very likely remain more expensive than using fossil fuels without capture and storage, so a carbon price would be necessary for it to be applied broadly. A related idea is to reflect sunlight away from the earth so temperatures do not rise as much. This approach does not reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and there is agreement that further research is necessary. If we use all of the fossil fuels in the ground, the planet will warm in a way that is difficult to imagine. Unless the economics of energy markets change, we are poised to use them. Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the University of Chicago, runs the Energy Policy Institute there. He was the chief economist of President Obamaâ€™s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010.
Vale sounds ‘alert’ over Mozambique coal sector May 24, 2014 Agence France Presse
Brazilian mine operator says the industry is losing ground to competitors and has called on the government to lower taxes to reduce operation costs. MAPUTO — Brazil’s Vale warned on Friday that Mozambique’s coal sector was losing ground to international competitors, calling on the Mozambican government to help reduce operation costs by lowering taxes. Announcing a firstquarter loss of $44m for local operations, the company said it had decided to “sound an alert” over competitiveness in Mozambique’s coal industry. That’s “what I am left with after paying the costs of shipping and rail” said Vale’s new country manager for Mozambique, Pedro Gutemberg, saying that it was five times cheaper to transport coal to China from Australia. Ten years after investing in one of the world’s largest untapped coal fields, Vale said a slump in global coal prices had forced it to rethink the profitability of Mozambican coal. Not only does Australia have a geographical advantage, but coal fields in Mozambique are much further from the coast. Mozambican coal producers are forced to compete for space on a single 500km railway line from coalrich Tete province to the shallowsea port of Beira. Several operators have been forced to truck their coal to the coast and some have even considered creating a network of barges. The subSaharan African country is still struggling to rebuild itself after a civil war that ended in 1992. Vale is in the process of building a $6bn alternative, 900km rail link to the northern deep water port of Nacala to be able to double its export capacity. Mr Gutemberg warned that Vale’s experience could scare off other investors. When new investors look at Mozambique and see Vale “they realise the results everyone is getting are negative and everyone is losing money,” said Mr Gutemberg. “Logically this will discourage them from making new investments. “If Vale has these kinds of losses, I think other companies have it worse. Vale is big enough to be able to manage for two or three years, but other companies are not in the same position. Mines in Tete are shutting down,” Mr Gutemberg said. The Brazilian major has a 25year mining concession and is sitting on what it says is over 1billion tonnes of proven reserves. Mr Gutemberg said Vale had entered talks with the government about temporarily lowering taxes. “It is a mechanism some countries use, to reduce taxes for a certain period, until the situation on the market improves and they can recover their taxes,” he said. “We still have confidence in Mozambique without doubt but we want certain questions to be treated in a concrete fashion,” he said. Vale declined to say how much tax it paid the Mozambican state, but indicated that the $18m payment in the first quarter did not reflect all the direct and indirect taxes it was subject to.
Adapted from an Interview with Meena Raman by ALAI magazine before Lima COP20 Meena Raman is a Malaysian public interest lawyer by training. She coordinates the climate change programme of Third World Network, and is on the Board of Friends of the Earth Malaysia.
Q) Climate change is one of the most overarching and serious challenges humanity is facing at present. Yet, in public debate it practically only comes to the forefront when there are catastrophes. What do you see as the main challenges for concerned social actors to put these issues on the public agenda and to build a movement to bring the necessary pressure on international negotiations? One of the main challenges is to make people aware of how the international negotiations have implications for climate actions on the ground – since no amount of local action can ever be enough. How other countries act matter in relation to emissions globally, resulting in climate impacts, requiring responses at the local and national levels. Hence, the need for international cooperation - and this is embedded in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – a treaty agreed to in 1992. This is the only global legal framework which imposes obligations on all governments to take action, with developed countries taking the lead in reducing their emissions and in providing financial and technological resources to developing countries to enable them to take climate actions in their countries. This is how the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and equity is operationalized. The provisions reflect the historical responsibility of developed countries in contributing much of the historic emissions in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Developed countries are attempting to weaken the Convention and to shift much of their responsibilities to address climate change onto developing countries in the name of a new agreement to be concluded in Paris. It is important that civil society and social movements prevent this – for otherwise- there will no longer be any equitable and environmental treaty for global action. Developed countries led by the United States and its allies do not want to respect the differentiation between developed and developing countries and want a regime that applies rules uniformly to all countries, regardless of whether there are differences between developed and developing countries. They also want all countries to pledge how much reductions they will do post 2020, without recognizing the need for financial and technology transfer support to developing countries, which is contrary to the Convention. The US and its’ allies want countries to make pledges according to their national circumstances, without recognizing that such a pledge and review world in the absence of setting aggregate targets for developed countries would lead to a world that is likely to raise temperatures to beyond 1.5 degree C to one which will be even 4-5 degrees C. One of the proposals that some developing country governments and civil society groups have articulated is about the need to share the remaining carbon space in the atmosphere equitably, taking into account historical emissions of countries from the industrial revolution era; allocations based on population and the relative wealth of countries to be able to take action. Limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degree C will mean that there is a certain amount of carbon space left- which is very limited-beyond which
emissions must not exceed. The developed countries have emitted much since history while accumulating their wealth, in an unconstrained carbon world based on fossil fuels. They have accumulated a carbon debt, meaning that they have used the atmospheric space of developing countries. This carbon debt has to be repaid in terms of financial resources to developing countries. They must also dramatically transform their own economies and lifestyles to stop further emissions as soon as possible. In a carbon constrained world, developing countries cannot repeat the same high carbon pathways; however, for them to transform to low carbon societies and to respond to climate impacts, this requires massive financial resources and technology transfers from developed to developing countries; this is because many developing countries are already challenged in meeting the basic needs of their people with limited resources, as well as to eradicate poverty and inequities in their countries. The only way to make such demands is for social movements and civil society to push for the implementation of existing obligations under the UNFCCC and to enhance further action and to prevent any backsliding of international obligations. For this to happen, more action is needed in capitals to hold governments to account in meeting their international commitments, especially in developed countries. This is in addition to pushing national climate actions in all countries. In developed countries, there is need to put greater pressure for increasing financial resources and technology transfer of environmentally sound technologies for climate actions to developing countries. Since the launching of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in 2011- a fund for developing countries to undertake climate actions set up under the UNFCCC- the Fund has yet to be capitalised. In Cancun, Mexico in 2010, governments had agreed that at least US100 billion per year would be mobilised by 2020. This has yet to materialise. It is vital that such resources are galvanised urgently, so as to enable developing countries to not only meet their adaptation needs, but also to undertake actions for emission reductions. If such transfer of resources is not forthcoming rapidly, then whatever limited national resources that developing countries have, will be diverted to addressing adaptation and losses resulting from natural or climate induced catastrophes. This would then be at the expense of meeting their other social and basic needs such as food, shelter, housing, health and education for the poor. Also, since agreement was reached in Cancun in 2010 to establish a Technology Mechanism to facilitate technology transfer to developing countries, very little has been accomplished in terms of actual delivery of technology transfer of environmentally sound technologies. Therefore, it is vital for social movements and CSOs to pressure developed country governments to honour their obligations. Q) What are the main debates taking place among social actors around climate change? What are the main alternatives being put forward by these social actors? Some of the main debates are listed above â€“ for an equitable approach to sharing the remaining atmospheric space; pushing for increased new, additional and predictable financial resources for the GCF; opposing false solutions that are advocated mainly by developed countries such as geo-engineering, new market mechanisms which promote carbon trading, nuclear energy, large-scale hydro dams, carbon capture and storage etc.
Halting Intentional Climate Inaction Nnimmo Bassey
If you keep going in the same direction, you will inevitably end up at where you are going. â€“ Chinese proverb The climate paradox is that while governments agree that it is an imminent crisis, they are unwilling to act in a manner that shows that they assimilate this truth. Indeed, climate negotiations have remained largely a political exercise that commits large amounts of money to access climate science and yet pays scant attention to it. This is what we learn from the tonnes of information generated by the IPCC compared to the decisions that come out from the (Conference of Parties) COPs. Climate Intentions We note particularly that by the subversive decision of the 2009 COP at Copenhagen the world stopped talking of binding commitment to emissions reduction by nations and rather stepped on to the path of voluntary actions. The world also slashed ambition on climate finance and was forced to comply with a $100bn per year climate fund a year by 2020. What happens before 2020 was left hanging. Another degenerate milestone was reached at the Conference of Parties five years later on at Lima, Peru. The Lima Call for Climate Action sought to actualise the intent of the so-called Copenhagen Accord. Rather than demanding binding emissions cut that would add up to meet targets indicated by science, nations are expected to toe the path of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). As the name suggests, nations are to suggest what they intend to (not what they must) do as their contributions to tackle the menace of climate change. As at mid-April 2015, about thirty-four (34) countries have so far submitted their INDCs to the UNFCCC. By the time of COP21 in Paris, it is expected that about 90% of the nations of the world would have submitted their INDCs and that, with no incentive and no compulsion to do what will meaningfully add up to tackle the menace of climate change, their cumulative intended contributions would in no way be anything necessary to cut emissions at levels that would produce a less than 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. With a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise Africa and some other parts of the world would already be literally on fire. We should also note at this juncture that whatever is agreed to at Paris would only come into effect by 2020 as previously set by the Copenhagen Accord. This suits political temperaments of leaders that are content to shift responsibility to take action to future administrations while they do nothing at the present. The further away the dates for ambitious actions are, the easier it is for political leaders to agree to such plans. The nearer the implementation of these targets is, the more improbable it is to expect enthusiastic support from political leaders. Not everything in the Lima outcome document pointed at a lack of ambition. The outcome retained the concepts of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities (CBDR) as well as openings for gender action and another on loss and
damage. While the CBDR speaks strongly to justice, fairness and equity, it is possible that arguments for payment of ecological and climate debt could be brought up under the loss and damage radar. This holds particular possibilities for support to Small Island states and other nations that have already been battered (and are still being battered) by freak weather events. Fossils Underground One thing that the COPs have consistently refused to acknowledge, as they should, is the central role played by humanâ€™s dependence on fossil fuels for energy and power generation. The World Bank and the International Energy Agency as well as the IPCC have acknowledged that substantial percentage of known reserves of fossil fuels must not be burned, that is, they must be left underground if catastrophic temperature increase is to be avoided. This reality which Oilwatch has been demanding for over 15 years now makes it urgent for nations to close their fossil shops and for corporations to shift their attention to clean energy and other forms of production. Is that what we see? No. Rather than work on urgent transition from fossil fuels, nations and corporations are embarking on more extreme and reckless modes of exploration and extraction of fossil fuels, including fracking and deep seas drilling. Rather than shifting to safer and cleaner energy forms, many countries, including many on the African continent, are celebrating new oil and gas finds. They are delirious with joy and getting set to enjoy the pyrrhic bounties that the sector promises. While anti-fracking movements denounce moves towards the reprehensible mode of extraction in Europe we hear of the announcement of massive oil find at a location near Gatwick airport in the United Kingdom. When shall we learn? Without the new finds, it was already estimated that the value of fossils to be left underground topped 22 trillion dollars. The fact that such fossils to be left underground are often referred to as stranded resources suggests that corporations and governments will don the saviour toga to rescue the resources from being stranded! Finance for Action As already mentioned, the COPs hope that by 2020 there would be $100bn a year in the kitty for climate finance. A Green Climate Fund (GCF) has been set up. The means of raising that money â€“ from private or public sources was not stipulated â€“ and this has led to various interpretations including counting development aid as climate finance. As we write this in mid-April 2015 only $10.2bn is in that account. Raising climate finance should not be such a hard thing if politicians especially from rich nations agree to do the right thing. For one, the huge expenditure on warfare amount to over a trillion dollars a year. 10% of the amount of money wasted on wars and other acts of aggression would already exceed the financial target for the GCF. Secondly, equity, fairness and justice demands that accumulated climate debt be paid. This would meet the huge financial demands been saddled on nations that neither contribute significantly to climate change nor are in a position to fund adaptation measures.
False Solutions If the UNFCCC is serious about carbon offset mechanisms, countries that leave fossils in the ground should be accorded carbon credits to the value of the fossils locked underground. This means that the Ogoni people should be paid handsomely for keeping millions of tonnes of carbon underground since they expelled Shell oil company from their territory in 1993. This would also mean hat Ecuador would not have to desecrate Yasuni because of the quest for cash at the expense of lives and a rich biodiversity. This means that countries like Kenya would not have to open up the protected Lake Turkana area for oil extraction and that Mozambique would defend its rich biodiversity rather than celebrate gas finds on its territory. The truth is that leaving fossils underground is more valuable than cash as a liveable planet offers opportunities that money cannot provide. If the whole carbon trade is not a fabricated lie the logic should be extended to fossils left underground. The urgency of the climate crisis demands that the world decarbonises urgently. We cannot allow politicians to intentionally refuse to act now and shift responsibility for action to generations yet unborn. No. We must not allow that. This is why we reject all false solutions that lock in pollution and snuffs life out of our peoples. False solutions such as agro-fuels and REDD have already had serious negative impacts on our peoples. Geo-engineering experiments have failed spectacularly, and even if they were to succeed, all scenarios reviewed by scientists and by the ETC Group show that Africa would suffer severe negative impacts from such moves. As one highly regarded physicist told a recent meeting, â€œgeo-engineering experiments have shown that it is totally useless.â€? It is a silver bullet that permits polluters to keep polluting and cannot deliver on its promise to suck released carbon from the atmosphere. Simple Solutions Complex problems can be solved with simple solutions. The climate crisis can be tackled by working with nature and not against her. We need to resolve to respect the rights of Mother Earth to maintain her natural cycles without human disruptions. We have to halt activities that have known negative impacts, including dependence on industrial agriculture and its litany of artificial and chemical inputs. We have to say yes to life and no to mining. It may be inconveniencing, but the pleasures and so-called easy life of today cannot justify a knowing condemnation of the planet and peoples to unacceptable future. We must all sand up, speak and ac against climate crimes. Climate action can only appear to be expensive if we continue to refuse to discern that the cost of inaction is far higher and intolerable. Inaction is attractive when polluters do not care about the impacted and refuse to accept the fact that ultimately everyone on planet Earth is vulnerable. Mass movements can press this message at local and national levels. And then all must coalesce in the global space to demand the urgent halting intentional climate crimes and inaction.