By Richard Zuber

Even though the outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, are to be celebrated as a step in the right direction despite all odds, a somewhat bitter aftertaste remains. In the wake of news that our species has merely 12 years to pull the ship around by making swift changes to global energy infrastructure, it was clear that something had to be done. This year’s COP24 talks resulted in huge fossil fuel divestments, yet the uncomfortable truth is that fighting climate change can only progress with them. It is impossible to abandon fossil fuels overnight, so a more realistic and humane approach to reducing carbon emissions has to be found.

It was a difficult task from the outset. The reporting of the international and domestic media on the horrors of climate change and the use of coal has effectively stifled debate and the ability to formulate clear thinking on the subject. The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in its current form has become untouchable, notwithstanding that its goals were highly Western-centric and near impossible to implement on a global scale. Pundits now cheer that COP24 represents a common move of institutions to cut ties to fossil fuel producers — “this most destructive of industries.” But things never are that simple.

In order for the Paris goals to be met, global emissions from power plants, factories, transport and deforestation would have to be eliminated entirely in short order. Ironically, not only is this ignorant of the realities on the ground, but, more damningly, it completely misses the point: Developing countries rely on coal and other cheap resources for economic growth, electricity and poverty alleviation. Still, activists and the media chose to focus on the political game rather than the actual situation, thereby exposing their immaturity when it comes to dealing with pressing issues like climate change.

A case in point is the vicious reaction to US President Donald Trump’s announcement to pull out of the agreement and his ongoing support for the continued use of coal through the promotion of high efficiency, low emissions (HELE) solutions. Even if it is hard to accept, the weight of evidence in concerned countries suggests that favouring technology conducive to reducing the carbon-intensity of fossil fuels is a viable compromise. Which is why the push for HELE is so important. The US hosted a forum at COP24 to advocate the use of this tech and to promote the Clean and Advanced Fossil Fuel Alliance. Originally presented after last year’s climate conference in Bonn, Germany, the alliance is exploring the benefits of more efficient fossil fuel technologies, as well as those — such as carbon capture and storage (CCS)— that have a part to play in reducing emissions in the long term.

Unlike the conventional approach that seeks to cut out all fossil fuels no matter the cost, this initiative sticks out because it takes into account the needs of developing countries. One billion people, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, live without electricity. It’s a problem that adversely impacts development indicators such as health, education, food security and poverty reduction. Furthermore, electrifying the poorest countries and thus improving living conditions is, notably, the primary objective of the UN Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7).

It’s a cruel irony then that the same people who agreed on the SDG7 are also those who now undermine their own good intentions by denying developing countries access to the one energy resource that can bring about these changes. In a move dripping with hypocrisy, global institutions like the World Bank have stopped coal financing, thereby denying access to affordable electricity for millions — a dynamic this COP has only reinforced.

The accusation of hypocrisy weighs even heavier considering that African leaders directly confronted World Bank President Jim Yong-kim in October, lamenting how the West is outraged about climate change but strangles African countries out of using fossil fuels. Their outrage is even more understandable since very little has actually been achieved by those who demand radical action and brand themselves as climate saviours. Far from raising the billions promised to help poor nations fight climate change, rich countries have continually failed to mobilize the $100 billion a year promised by 2020 to developing states for climate finance. Instead of the money, developing countries only get self-righteous finger-wagging and preachy talks for insisting on using cheap energy sources. But rich countries are willfully ignoring that without funds to finance emission-mitigating technologies like HELE, developing nation’s CO2 emissions will only keep rising.

While it may be hard for us to understand in the plentiful West, in countries like Indonesia, energy production — not climate change — is the most pressing concern. The government seeks to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants, and projections suggest that within 10 years, energy will be the largest contributor to Indonesian emissions. And it’s not an isolated case: Across Asia, hundreds of gigawatts of new coal-fired power generation is under construction, showing that the growing appetite for coal is unlikely to diminish any time soon.

Developing nations are rightly indignant that Western powers who are responsible for most of the carbon emissions to date — and who are failing on their own climate pledges — are lecturing them on cutting fossil fuel use. Instead of berating the lack of progress in fighting climate change, it would be best to accept that impact could be mitigated without compromising on economic prosperity. More efficient HELE and CSS technologies are the way to go. If COP24 and its successors want to create a lasting impact, rational thought and realistic appraisals of global conditions must prevail over myopic ideological fervour.

(Richard Zuber is a New York-based policy adviser who specialises in US foreign policy)

(This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/cop24-katowice-poland-climate-change-technology-solutions-news-81762/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Richard Zuber Even though the outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, are to be celebrated as a step in the right direction despite all odds, a somewhat bitter aftertaste remains.

By Richard Zuber Even though the outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, are to be celebrated as a step in the right direction despite all odds, a somewhat bitter aftertaste remains. In the wake of news that our species has merely 12 years to pull the ship around by making swift changes to global energy infrastructure, it was clear that something had to be done. This year’s COP24 talks resulted in huge fossil fuel divestments, yet the uncomfortable truth is that fighting climate change can only progress with them. It is impossible to abandon fossil fuels overnight, so a more realistic and humane approach to reducing carbon emissions has to be found. It was a difficult task from the outset. The reporting of the international and domestic media on the horrors of climate change and the use of coal has effectively stifled debate and the ability to formulate clear thinking on the subject. The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in its current form has become untouchable, notwithstanding that its goals were highly Western-centric and near impossible to implement on a global scale. Pundits now cheer that COP24 represents a common move of institutions to cut ties to fossil fuel producers — “this most destructive of industries.” But things never are that simple. In order for the Paris goals to be met, global emissions from power plants, factories, transport and deforestation would have to be eliminated entirely in short order. Ironically, not only is this ignorant of the realities on the ground, but, more damningly, it completely misses the point: Developing countries rely on coal and other cheap resources for economic growth, electricity and poverty alleviation. Still, activists and the media chose to focus on the political game rather than the actual situation, thereby exposing their immaturity when it comes to dealing with pressing issues like climate change. A case in point is the vicious reaction to US President Donald Trump’s announcement to pull out of the agreement and his ongoing support for the continued use of coal through the promotion of high efficiency, low emissions (HELE) solutions. Even if it is hard to accept, the weight of evidence in concerned countries suggests that favouring technology conducive to reducing the carbon-intensity of fossil fuels is a viable compromise. Which is why the push for HELE is so important. The US hosted a forum at COP24 to advocate the use of this tech and to promote the Clean and Advanced Fossil Fuel Alliance. Originally presented after last year’s climate conference in Bonn, Germany, the alliance is exploring the benefits of more efficient fossil fuel technologies, as well as those — such as carbon capture and storage (CCS)— that have a part to play in reducing emissions in the long term. Unlike the conventional approach that seeks to cut out all fossil fuels no matter the cost, this initiative sticks out because it takes into account the needs of developing countries. One billion people, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, live without electricity. It’s a problem that adversely impacts development indicators such as health, education, food security and poverty reduction. Furthermore, electrifying the poorest countries and thus improving living conditions is, notably, the primary objective of the UN Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7). It’s a cruel irony then that the same people who agreed on the SDG7 are also those who now undermine their own good intentions by denying developing countries access to the one energy resource that can bring about these changes. In a move dripping with hypocrisy, global institutions like the World Bank have stopped coal financing, thereby denying access to affordable electricity for millions — a dynamic this COP has only reinforced. The accusation of hypocrisy weighs even heavier considering that African leaders directly confronted World Bank President Jim Yong-kim in October, lamenting how the West is outraged about climate change but strangles African countries out of using fossil fuels. Their outrage is even more understandable since very little has actually been achieved by those who demand radical action and brand themselves as climate saviours. Far from raising the billions promised to help poor nations fight climate change, rich countries have continually failed to mobilize the $100 billion a year promised by 2020 to developing states for climate finance. Instead of the money, developing countries only get self-righteous finger-wagging and preachy talks for insisting on using cheap energy sources. But rich countries are willfully ignoring that without funds to finance emission-mitigating technologies like HELE, developing nation’s CO2 emissions will only keep rising. While it may be hard for us to understand in the plentiful West, in countries like Indonesia, energy production — not climate change — is the most pressing concern. The government seeks to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants, and projections suggest that within 10 years, energy will be the largest contributor to Indonesian emissions. And it’s not an isolated case: Across Asia, hundreds of gigawatts of new coal-fired power generation is under construction, showing that the growing appetite for coal is unlikely to diminish any time soon. Developing nations are rightly indignant that Western powers who are responsible for most of the carbon emissions to date — and who are failing on their own climate pledges — are lecturing them on cutting fossil fuel use. Instead of berating the lack of progress in fighting climate change, it would be best to accept that impact could be mitigated without compromising on economic prosperity. More efficient HELE and CSS technologies are the way to go. If COP24 and its successors want to create a lasting impact, rational thought and realistic appraisals of global conditions must prevail over myopic ideological fervour. (Richard Zuber is a New York-based policy adviser who specialises in US foreign policy) (This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

It’s time for a new climate compromise

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief.&nbsp;

The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.&nbsp;

Dodging the skepticism rooted in the hard negotiations and slow progress in the run-up to COP 24, an agreement, even if with rued nods from many parties, is a positive step.&nbsp;

However, the unfolding of the negotiations warrants that developing countries invest in greater scrutiny of the implementation as well as subsequent discussions at COPs.&nbsp;

For over a decade now, the meaning of ‘global’ quest is being, subtly, pushed towards, what may be called, Third World’s burden irrespective of respective capabilities and responsibilities.

Many influential thought leaders from the developed world, while revealing their helplessness with, and discounting the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement by citing the commitments from the various state governments and cities, urge the developing countries, particularly China and India, to take on greater commitments without taking into account their own roles and responsibilities.

This convolution of differentiation was obvious at least in four instances during proceedings of the COP24: First, the unwillingness of industrialised countries to include providing credible and verifiable information on financial flows in the Global Stock Take process was in clear defiance of the objective of the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement aims to ensure financial flows consistent with the requirements of the climate resilient low-carbon development pathways.&nbsp;

After doing away with the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, providing climate finance to developing countries is the most significant substantive parameter of ensuring equity.&nbsp;

The diplomatic keenness of France to protect the Paris Agreement, by announcing annual replenishment to GCF, when the finance agenda was to become a point of deadlock explains the centrality of finance to successful climate negotiations, as well as ‘global’ climate action.

Second, the opposition to the use of accumulated credits from the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol in the new market mechanism under the Paris Agreement by many developed countries is equivalent of arguing for quantified emission reduction targets for developing countries, post-facto, when the relevant global agreement did not require them to have any.&nbsp;

The argument that the new rules are stricter, leading to the issues of environmental integrity, is not merely a technical point. It is symptomatic of political cunningness of trickery by rules.

Doubts over environmental integrity of certain Clean Development Projects (CDM) had been discussed in great detail during the reform debates and many proposals were made, including the use of a discount rate. These options are valid for the new market mechanism as well.

Discarding a celebrated market mechanism’s legacy in its next avatar and putting developing countries in a disadvantageous position must be understood as the reflection of the core political design of industrialised countries.

Third, the opposition by developed countries to the flexibilities given to developing countries in complying with the reporting requirements, along with the demands for greater details, leaves the process of Global Stock Take far from being congenially resolved.&nbsp;

The proposal to divide the rule-book into multiple agreements, which was rightly opposed by developing countries, was a clever attempt by developed countries at keeping the developing country parties under undue pressure of ‘global’ (read Northern) scrutiny.&nbsp;

Finally, as has been much debated, the unwillingness of some of the developed countries to ‘welcome’ the 1.5 degrees report from the IPCC – despite having asked for this assessment – is a clear indication of their unwillingness to adopt stricter mitigation measures today, even though this may result in significantly larger impacts in the world and on those that have greater vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacities.&nbsp;

We are once again proving that we are not able to deal with the science truly, in face of political compulsions. To sum up, as noted by India in her formal reservation statement, implementation of the principle of equity and differentiation is constantly being undermined.&nbsp;

Having done away with the top-down distinction between industrialised and developing countries, now the attempt is to erase it, if not reverse it, through the details of implementation of the Paris Agreement.&nbsp;

Both the governments as well as the researchers in developing countries, therefore, need to be extra vigilant in tracking climate policy globally and nationally. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-cop-24-developed-nations-unwilling-to-adopt-stricter-mitigation-measures-2697234">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief. The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief. The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. Dodging the skepticism rooted in the hard negotiations and slow progress in the run-up to COP 24, an agreement, even if with rued nods from many parties, is a positive step. However, the unfolding of the negotiations warrants that developing countries invest in greater scrutiny of the implementation as well as subsequent discussions at COPs. For over a decade now, the meaning of ‘global’ quest is being, subtly, pushed towards, what may be called, Third World’s burden irrespective of respective capabilities and responsibilities. Many influential thought leaders from the developed world, while revealing their helplessness with, and discounting the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement by citing the commitments from the various state governments and cities, urge the developing countries, particularly China and India, to take on greater commitments without taking into account their own roles and responsibilities. This convolution of differentiation was obvious at least in four instances during proceedings of the COP24: First, the unwillingness of industrialised countries to include providing credible and verifiable information on financial flows in the Global Stock Take process was in clear defiance of the objective of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to ensure financial flows consistent with the requirements of the climate resilient low-carbon development pathways. After doing away with the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, providing climate finance to developing countries is the most significant substantive parameter of ensuring equity. The diplomatic keenness of France to protect the Paris Agreement, by announcing annual replenishment to GCF, when the finance agenda was to become a point of deadlock explains the centrality of finance to successful climate negotiations, as well as ‘global’ climate action. Second, the opposition to the use of accumulated credits from the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol in the new market mechanism under the Paris Agreement by many developed countries is equivalent of arguing for quantified emission reduction targets for developing countries, post-facto, when the relevant global agreement did not require them to have any. The argument that the new rules are stricter, leading to the issues of environmental integrity, is not merely a technical point. It is symptomatic of political cunningness of trickery by rules. Doubts over environmental integrity of certain Clean Development Projects (CDM) had been discussed in great detail during the reform debates and many proposals were made, including the use of a discount rate. These options are valid for the new market mechanism as well. Discarding a celebrated market mechanism’s legacy in its next avatar and putting developing countries in a disadvantageous position must be understood as the reflection of the core political design of industrialised countries. Third, the opposition by developed countries to the flexibilities given to developing countries in complying with the reporting requirements, along with the demands for greater details, leaves the process of Global Stock Take far from being congenially resolved. The proposal to divide the rule-book into multiple agreements, which was rightly opposed by developing countries, was a clever attempt by developed countries at keeping the developing country parties under undue pressure of ‘global’ (read Northern) scrutiny. Finally, as has been much debated, the unwillingness of some of the developed countries to ‘welcome’ the 1.5 degrees report from the IPCC – despite having asked for this assessment – is a clear indication of their unwillingness to adopt stricter mitigation measures today, even though this may result in significantly larger impacts in the world and on those that have greater vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacities. We are once again proving that we are not able to deal with the science truly, in face of political compulsions. To sum up, as noted by India in her formal reservation statement, implementation of the principle of equity and differentiation is constantly being undermined. Having done away with the top-down distinction between industrialised and developing countries, now the attempt is to erase it, if not reverse it, through the details of implementation of the Paris Agreement. Both the governments as well as the researchers in developing countries, therefore, need to be extra vigilant in tracking climate policy globally and nationally. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

COP 24: Developed nations unwilling to adopt stricter mitigation measures to address climate change

The World Bank on Monday unveiled $200 billion in climate action investment for 2021-25, adding this amounts to a doubling of its current five-year funding. &nbsp;

The World Bank said the move, coinciding with&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/act-now-or-risk-disaster-world-told-at-un-climate-summit-181034">a UN climate summit meeting of some 200 nations in Poland</a>, represented a "significantly ramped up ambition" to tackle climate change, "sending an important signal to the wider global community to do the same."

Developed countries are committed to lifting combined annual public and private spending to $100 billion in developing countries by 2020 to fight the impact of climate change -- up from 48.5 billion in 2016 and 56.7 billion last year, according to latest OECD data.

Southern hemisphere countries fighting the impact of warming temperatures are nonetheless pushing northern counterparts for firmer commitments.

In a statement, the World Bank said the breakdown of the $200 billion would comprise "approximately $100 billion in direct finance from the World Bank."

Around one third of the remaining funding will come from two World Bank Group agencies with the rest private capital "mobilised by the World Bank Group."

"If we don't reduce emissions and build adaptation now, we'll have 100 million more people living in poverty by 2030," John Roome, World Bank senior director for climate change, warned.

"And we also know that the less we address this issue proactively just in three regions -- Africa, South Asia and Latin America -- we'll have 133 million climate migrants," Roome told AFP.

- 'Fight the causes' - 
The bank's financing package amounts to "about 40 billion a year, but the direct (finance) is 27 billion per year on average," Roome said.

He added that in the 2018 fiscal year, running from July 2017 to June this year, the World Bank had committed $20.5 billion to climate action, compared with an annual average of $13.5 billion for the 2014-2018 period.

Roome said the money now being earmarked amounted to "about 35 percent" of the World Bank Group's total financing.

Much of the climate action financing is being set aside for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, notably through development of renewable energy strategies.

However, the World Bank stated that "a key priority is boosting support for climate adaptation," given the millions of people already battling the consequences of extreme weather.

"By ramping up direct adaptation finance to reach around $50 billion over (fiscal) 21-25, the World Bank will, for the first time, give this equal emphasis alongside investments that reduce emissions," the bank stated.

Given the urgency to act in the face of sea level rise, flooding and drought "we must fight the causes, but also adapt to the consequences that are often most dramatic for the world's poorest people," said World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva.

By stepping up financial aid to developing countries worst affected, Georgieva said the bank was committed to adapting infrastructure while investing in "climate smart agriculture, sustainable water management and responsive social safety nets" as well as early response networks.

"Even if we can keep global warming down to 2 degrees Celsius we know you're gonna need a significant amount of adaptation in places like Chad, Mozambique or Bangladesh," said Roome.

The countries whose representatives are meeting at the UN climate summit which opened Sunday in the Polish city of Katowice are seeking to make good on commitments made in the 2015 Paris climate accord.

That agreement saw countries commit to limiting global temperature rises to well below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and to the safer cap of 1.5C if at all possible.

The World Bank on Monday unveiled $200 billion in climate action investment for 2021-25, adding this amounts to a doubling of its current five-year funding. The World Bank said the move, coinciding with a UN climate summit meeting of some 200 nations in Poland, represented a "significantly ramped up ambition" to tackle climate change, "sending an important signal to the wider global community to do the same.

The World Bank on Monday unveiled $200 billion in climate action investment for 2021-25, adding this amounts to a doubling of its current five-year funding. The World Bank said the move, coinciding with a UN climate summit meeting of some 200 nations in Poland, represented a "significantly ramped up ambition" to tackle climate change, "sending an important signal to the wider global community to do the same." Developed countries are committed to lifting combined annual public and private spending to $100 billion in developing countries by 2020 to fight the impact of climate change -- up from 48.5 billion in 2016 and 56.7 billion last year, according to latest OECD data. Southern hemisphere countries fighting the impact of warming temperatures are nonetheless pushing northern counterparts for firmer commitments. In a statement, the World Bank said the breakdown of the $200 billion would comprise "approximately $100 billion in direct finance from the World Bank." Around one third of the remaining funding will come from two World Bank Group agencies with the rest private capital "mobilised by the World Bank Group." "If we don't reduce emissions and build adaptation now, we'll have 100 million more people living in poverty by 2030," John Roome, World Bank senior director for climate change, warned. "And we also know that the less we address this issue proactively just in three regions -- Africa, South Asia and Latin America -- we'll have 133 million climate migrants," Roome told AFP. - 'Fight the causes' - The bank's financing package amounts to "about 40 billion a year, but the direct (finance) is 27 billion per year on average," Roome said. He added that in the 2018 fiscal year, running from July 2017 to June this year, the World Bank had committed $20.5 billion to climate action, compared with an annual average of $13.5 billion for the 2014-2018 period. Roome said the money now being earmarked amounted to "about 35 percent" of the World Bank Group's total financing. Much of the climate action financing is being set aside for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, notably through development of renewable energy strategies. However, the World Bank stated that "a key priority is boosting support for climate adaptation," given the millions of people already battling the consequences of extreme weather. "By ramping up direct adaptation finance to reach around $50 billion over (fiscal) 21-25, the World Bank will, for the first time, give this equal emphasis alongside investments that reduce emissions," the bank stated. Given the urgency to act in the face of sea level rise, flooding and drought "we must fight the causes, but also adapt to the consequences that are often most dramatic for the world's poorest people," said World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva. By stepping up financial aid to developing countries worst affected, Georgieva said the bank was committed to adapting infrastructure while investing in "climate smart agriculture, sustainable water management and responsive social safety nets" as well as early response networks. "Even if we can keep global warming down to 2 degrees Celsius we know you're gonna need a significant amount of adaptation in places like Chad, Mozambique or Bangladesh," said Roome. The countries whose representatives are meeting at the UN climate summit which opened Sunday in the Polish city of Katowice are seeking to make good on commitments made in the 2015 Paris climate accord. That agreement saw countries commit to limiting global temperature rises to well below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and to the safer cap of 1.5C if at all possible.

World Bank doubles funding to fight climate change to $200 bn

cop-24

Cop 24, News on Cop 24, stories on Cop 24, articles on Cop 24, Cop 24 stories at Wion, Cop 24 news, Cop 24 latest news

cop 24

It’s time for a new climate compromise

COP 24: Developed nations unwilling to adopt stricter mitigation measures to address climate change

World Bank doubles funding to fight climate change to $200 bn