7 February 2016, Reuters U.N. agency seeks to end rift on new aircraft emission rules. Europe and the United States tried to bridge differences over emissions standards for aircraft on Sunday as global aviation leaders prepared to adopt new rules that could affect Boeing Co and Airbus Group’s production of the largest jetliners and freighters. Proposals being debated in Montreal by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations’ aviation agency, would force makers of the world’s largest passenger jets to upgrade or stop producing certain models as early as 2023, according to sources close to the negotiations and documents seen by Reuters. U.S. and European negotiators are trying to come up with the world’s first carbon dioxide emissions standards for aircraft as part of the industry’s contribution to efforts to combat climate change. Aviation was not included in the global climate deal agreed by a UN conference in Paris in December, but ICAO is trying to nail down the first of its two-part strategy as soon as Monday after six years of talks. It is due to finalize a market-based mechanism for all airlines later this year. Differences remain on where to place the bar on efficiency, with the United States and Canada pushing for more stringent targets than the European Union, while environmental groups have accused Europe of dragging its feet. “The CO2 standard will push industry to be as fuel-efficient as possible in all market conditions to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and the impact of aviation on climate change,” stated the Canadian paper presented at ICAO last week. Read More here
Tag Archives: UNFCCC
14 January 2016, Yale Connections. Activist’s ‘Long-Haul’ Climate Campaign. A veteran reporter on climate issues provides a glimpse into a corporate responsibility activist’s efforts during the recent Paris climate conference. the Paris climate conference got under way last December, Jesse Bragg introduced himself to me on a crowded shuttle bus between the converted airplane hangers where negotiators were meeting. He’d read my ID badge and noticed that I was from Boston. He said that he worked at Corporate Accountability International’s headquarters in downtown Boston. We soon realized we live just miles apart. Each of the nearly 200 national delegations needed many staff members. The number of delegates registered from the US – including four cabinet secretaries and more than a dozen senators – filled four pages of the official roster.I’d never heard of Corporate Accountability International, nor of its mission – to make private corporations answerable to public institutions. But the encounter gave me the chance to satisfy a curiosity. With more than 30,000 visitors expected at the conference and sitting through nearly 3,000 meetings and drinking some 71,000 cups of coffee – what were they all doing? Even tiny Haiti, among the world’s poorest nations, listed 15 delegates. All told, governments had sent 19,200 representatives to Paris. Altogether, media organizations had dispatched nearly 2,800 journalists. I understood roughly why these people were there. But what about the 8,300 “observers,” including industry and nongovernmental organization representatives? Jesse was one of them, and I asked about his plans in the coming 10 days. We agreed to meet the following morning. Job description: Expose transnationals’ ‘abuses’. Read More here
18 December 2015, Marlborough Express, The human side of the climate debate. OPINION: United Nations global-warming talks have taken place in Paris. The world’s most senior politicians have debated ways to combat accelerated climate change. But it’s voluntary and besides it’s a sticking plaster approach – treat symptoms but ignore the cause. There seemed one very important undebated factor – people. The population factor in global warming is sadly being ignored. Politicians and bureaucrats will use any scapegoat. In 2007 director general of the Department of Conservation Al Morrison, bizarrely tried to incriminate wild deer alleging they were guilty of farting and belching. Animals can’t argue back in defence, people do. Deer and cows don’t vote but people do. Therein lies the cause of the problem – people and politics. Furthermore people drive cars which belch emissions, coal-fired power stations belch and jet planes fart “gases and particles — which contribute to climate change.” Humans demand resources, flush toilets, use chemical insecticides and pesticides and throw away garbage. Deer and cows don’t. Humans or more particularly numbers of people, are the primary cause of environmental degradation and global warming. The more people, the more demand for resources. More people require more meat and milk – more cows. More people means more cars which means more emissions. Gimme more, more and more. Read More here
16 December 2015, WRI, Form AND Function: Why the Paris Agreement’s Legal Form Is So Important. Because the Paris Agreement is a universal, legally binding agreement to tackle climate change under international law, it joins other such agreements as the highest expression of political intent and will. Yes, it has binding and non-binding components, but overall it is durable and underpins decisive real-economy change and drives corresponding national legislation and policy. Entering into legally binding agreements sends a strong signal to corporations, planners, investors and other implementers that governments will enforce climate policies. This is an agreement between countries in which each country indicates its intent to be bound at the international level. Each country follows its own domestic authorization process based on its own unique legal system, before joining this international agreement. This legal form makes the Paris Agreement, adopted December 12, 2015 at COP21, fundamentally different from the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was a product of its time, with only a small number of countries taking on binding emission reduction targets. The Paris Agreement moves beyond that, achieving legal rigor while ensuring universal participation. While Kyoto succeeded in reducing emissions in some developed countries, it only had binding targets for a few countries. By contrast, the Paris Agreement includes every country and thus has to accommodate the different development stages of those countries. The targets themselves are not binding, but all countries are obliged to prepare, communicate and maintain their targets and pursue domestic measures to achieve them. Framing the obligation in this way is likely to increase the likelihood of implementation, since the targets are nationally-determined and in many countries, already anchored in nationally binding laws and regulations. It’s a more accommodating way to bind countries to deliver their national plans, while recognizing that some countries are not in a position to have their targets stated directly into a treaty. The Agreement has strong legally binding provisions on how to measure, report and verify emissions reduction commitments. Countries will be required to measure their emissions in the same way, report on them in the same frequency and format and have them verified through an independent technical process. The Agreement also ensures that countries must come to a multilateral setting to discuss progress on implementation of their emissions reduction targets. This commitment from all countries provides the means to track progress on how countries implement their commitments. This means there are opportunities to “name and shame” countries for not meeting their commitments. It is here that the court of international public opinion acts to judge and pressure countries. More specifically, the Paris Agreement includes a set of legally binding obligations on a range of issues, including: Read More here