7 October 2015, The Guardian, UN drops plan to help move climate-change affected people. Australia opposed the plan for a group to assist migration, and it has been left off the draft agreement for UN climate talks in Paris. Australia’s opposition to the creation of a body to help people escaping the ravages of climate change appears to have paid off, with the idea dropped from the draft agreement for the crucial UN climate talks in Paris. A previous draft of the deal to be thrashed out by nations included a “climate change displacement coordination facility” that would provide “organised migration and planned relocation”, as well as compensation, to people fleeing rising sea levels, extreme weather and ruined agriculture. Read more here
Category Archives: Global Action Inaction
6 October 2015, Renew Economy, UN draft Paris climate pact released – Australian policy under pressure. A new draft of the global climate change pact due to be signed in Paris this December has been released by the UN, calling on all nations to commit to mitigation policies that reflect their highest possible ambition, and to toughen these commitments every five years. The 20-page draft, released by the co-chairs of the UN climate negations in Bonn on Monday, increases the pressure on countries like Australia, whose low-ball emissions reduction target has been roundly criticised for lacking ambition and not having a sufficient policy framework. The Ad hoc working group on the Durban platform (ADP), the body tasked with negotiating the agreement, prepared the greatly pared-back draft – it is less than a quarter of the length of the last version – as the basis for negotiation of the draft Paris climate package. And while it leaves many key details unclear or unstated – namely when parties should reach peak emissions growth, or how quickly curbs will have to be ratcheted up – it does include a commitment to hold warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels; a target the science dictates as crucial to avoid irreversible, catastrophic climate change. The report also contain a draft of the decision that will operationalise the agreement from 2020 and a draft decision on pre-2020 ambition. This suggests each party should regularly communicate a nationally determined mitigation contribution or commitment, which should “reflect a progression beyond its previous efforts, noting that those Parties that have previously communicated economy-wide efforts should continue to do so in a manner that is progressively more ambition us and that all Parties should aim to do so over time.” Read More here
5 October 2015, Science Daily, Global climate agreements could be counterproductive. International climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol may discourage much-needed investment in renewable energy sources, and hence be counterproductive, according to new research. The climate formula. The world’s environmentalists are counting down to the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris. However, such climate agreements could be counterproductive. Bård Harstad is a professor of economics at the University of Oslo and has done research on climate agreements and international cooperation for many years. In the recent journal article “The Dynamics of Climate Agreements,” Harstad analyses the connections between emissions, negotiations, and the development of new technology. His findings reveal weaknesses of today’s system, but also show how international climate agreements should be designed in order to better stimulate the development of new technology. The bad news is that international climate agreements, like the Kyoto Protocol, may discourage much-needed investment in renewable energy sources. “The main problem with emission agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, is that they do not provide incentives to invest in green technology because they are too short-sighted. Read More here
23 September 2015, The Conversation, Sustained economic growth: United Nations mistake the poison for the cure. On September 25 world leaders will meet in New York to formalise the new Sustainable Development Goals. These 17 goals will guide efforts to reduce poverty and increase well-being, without destroying the Earth. The Conversation is looking at how we got here, and how far we have to go. On the surface, the Sustainable Development Goals, soon to be confirmed by the United Nations, seem noble and progressive. They seek to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and hunger while creating sustainable and resilient societies. But look beneath the surface of this pleasant rhetoric and one comes face to face with a far more ominous vision of development: a vision that is fundamentally compromised by corporate interests and ultimately doomed to failure, if not catastrophe. The defining flaw in the United Nations’ agenda is the naïve assumption that “sustained economic growth” is the most direct path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This faith in the god of growth is fundamentally misplaced. It has been shown, for example, that for every $100 in global growth merely $0.60 is directed toward resolving global poverty. Not only is this an incredibly inefficient pathway to poverty alleviation, it is environmentally unsupportable. By championing economic growth, the Sustainable Development Goals are a barely disguised defence of the market fundamentalism that underpins business-as-usual. But in an age of planetary limits, sustained economic growth is not the solution to our social and environmental ills, but their cause. Read More here