Share The World's Resources (STWR) - Environment

After Dubai: Towards a “just, orderly, and equitable” fossil fuel phase out

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Feb 2024 11:44:00 +0000

53399807205_b4daa9e660_c.jpg

Unless we win a comprehensive climate finance breakthrough to address the global North-South inequality crisis, all hope for ‘a fair, orderly, and equitable’ phase-out of fossil fuels will be abandoned, writes Tom Athanasiou for Foreign Policy in Focus.

During the recent climate summit in Dubai, COP28 president Sultan Al-Jaber, with some exasperation, came out with the following rather amazing statement:

“Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”

Al-Jabar was posturing when he made this quip about caves, but he can almost be forgiven. We badly need a roadmap for a “phase out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development.” By noting the lack of one, he underscored its absence. This is true even if he spoke as a flack of the fossil fuel cartel.

Speaking of COP28, it helped settle the question of the COPs, which still troubles the climate left. The COPs are easily dismissed as “blah blah blah.” But they are, in a word, necessary. We would be in far greater trouble without them, and this is true even though the COPs are condemned to make decisions by consensus, even though they engender endless greenwashing, even though, with next year’s COP29 slated for Azerbaijan, two in a row will be hosted by straight-up petrostates.

The climate negotiations are finally circling core issues. COP26 saw a decision to “phase down” coal, and COP28 opened with the Loss and Damage fund finally lurching into existence. Then came COP28’s key decision text, which called for “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.” Only a month later—with President Biden’s decision to “pause” the approval of new liquified natural gas terminals, a decision the White House explicitly linked to COP28— the meeting demonstrated real world benefits. It could have many more in the future, including outside the United States.

Meanwhile, COP29 is set to see climate finance take center stage, and the next big battle begin. It could (if all goes well) culminate in 2025, where COP30 will be hosted by Lula da Sila’s Brazil, and deliver a meaningful decision on that crucial front. This is not the time to performatively insist that COP stands for “conference of polluters.”

Having said all this, I must immediately add that the climate negotiations have thus far failed, as decisively witnessed by the steadily rising atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration. COP skeptics are quite right about this. But in their failure the international negotiations are hardly alone. Domestic climate action has had many victories, but it has hardly put us on a path to deep and rapid decarbonization. Nor has the green technology revolution brought planetary emissions into a peak-and-decline pathway. Nor—and this is not easy to say—have the world’s direct action and climate justice movements filled the gaps. Politically, they may be everything, but they too have failed to stop the warming.

One key point: the COP28 text does not simply call for transitioning away from fossil fuels but rather stipulates that this transition must be “just, orderly, and equitable,” a much more challenging prospect. This led Sivan Kartha, a climate equity specialist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, to add that the “deepest fissure” in Dubai was between those who simply want a rapid fossil phase out and those who insist that, to have any hope of success, such a phase out must be fair.

Many of us agree—but what does such fairness imply?

Embracing “Climate Emergency”

It has become fashionable, yet again, to argue that terms like “climate emergency” are dangerously demoralizing. Perhaps they are. Unfortunately, they are also accurate. We really do have to aim for net-zero emission by 2050, and that means facing political-economic challenges that are difficult to exaggerate. As are those posed by the closely related 1.5°C temperature goal.

There are lots of voices telling us that 1.5°C is no longer achievable, but this is not quite true. Rather, 1.5°C remains achievable, but only via “overshoot and decline” pathways in which, sometime after the warming grinds past 1.5°C, we manage to claw it back down. Will we achieve such a mobilization, or at least avoid catastrophe? This is the real question.

We are going to go into 1.5°C overshoot soon. As we do, even if we assume we’ll be able to draw the temperature back down, we can’t know how extreme the overshoot will be, or how long it will last. Some people, Marxist climate hawk Andreas Malm among them, do not think we’ll be able to pull off the necessary drawdown (“I’m not an optimist about the human project”), though he agrees that it is technically possible.

If we seriously intend to keep 1.5°C alive (as a long-term goal—think 2100), we must in the short term do everything to keep the temperature peak “well below 2°C” (the weak end of the Paris target), which is widely judged, by top scientists, to still be achievable. But there’s a hitch. Even this weaker goal demands, per the IPCC, “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” It’s not going to happen in today’s world.

If, in 2050, we are approaching true net-zero planetary emissions, we’ll have a good chance of avoiding a world in which the cascading consequences of the warming become unmanageable. Very rapidly building low- and ultra-low emissions energy systems around the world is a necessary step towards that goal—and because such systems are emerging, and rapidly dropping in cost, it’s possible to be honestly optimistic. But such systems are not going to be enough.

Net-zero 2050 means going beyond the deployment of new, ultra-low emissions infrastructure to also eliminate existing fossil fuel infrastructure. This means that virtually all countries, be they rich or poor, developed or developing, should immediately stop investing in fossil fuel infrastructure, not least because that infrastructure will have to be decommissioned—shut down, mothballed, stranded—long before it’s worn out. All countries must also very rapidly decommission the fossil fuel infrastructure (e.g. existing oil wells, old coal plants) they already have in place—even if it’s profitable and even if people depend on it for their livelihoods. Such a decommissioning process is going to be both expensive and disruptive, in both political and economic terms, and in ways that are particularly hard on poor and insecure populations.

In a world geared for rapid transition, these would be tractable challenges, but that would be a world in which we were speaking honestly about the depth and profundity of the necessary transformation, a world in which we were, as per Australian author and analyst David Spratt, in “emergency mode.” This, obviously, is not our world, which still tends towards greenwashing, soft-pedaling, and small-bore gradualism, if not actual denialism and climate “brightsiding.”

The encouraging possibilities are real, don’t get me wrong.

The green technology revolution really does make it possible for us to save ourselves, and to build new futures. But we’re still facing almost impossible strategic challenges, and justice is at the heart of many of them. Brave choices are going to be necessary, and a political movement that tries to avoid them will not do well when push comes to shove. As it will, within the lifetimes of our children.

A Global Extraction Phase Out

It will be very difficult to engineer a sufficiently rapid phase out of fossil fuel consumption. But the difficulties are even greater when it comes to fossil fuel extraction and production. Think mining, and drilling, and fracking.

There are rich countries like the United States and Norway, which are heavily invested in oil and gas extraction. High-poverty developing countries, like South Africa and India, are heavily invested in coal, while the Democratic Republic of Congo is highly dependent on oil revenue to provide public services. Gulf oil exporters like the United Arab Emirates, the COP28 host, was a developing country before it struck oil. Today, though the UAE may not be “developed” in the same way as, say, the United States or Germany, it is nonetheless a wealthy, high-capacity country with the money and resources to buffer the turbulence that will come with any rapid abandonment of oil.

Which countries deserve more time before they have to stop extracting and selling fossil fuels? The question haunts the climate negotiations, but it is not, in an important sense, the right question at all. The greater truth is that we must stop the fossil energy pipeline, globally and as soon as possible. The right question is which countries need support—financial, political, and technological support—before they can hope to rapidly break their dependency on fossil fuel extraction.

All extracting countries will plead their cases. The most legitimate pleas come from poor developing countries that are highly dependent on fossil-related revenues and livelihoods. But although lots of countries call themselves developing, some of them are a lot richer than others. The good news is that this confusion is dissipating, for reasons that were easy to appreciate in Dubai, the global city of the United Arab Emirate. The UAE, like Saudi Arabia, is an extremely wealthy Gulf oil exporter that, while still officially a member of the “Group of 77” developing countries, is not a developing country at all.

Why must we say this? Because we must transition away from fossil fuels in a “just, orderly, and equitable” manner, and because such a transition is going to be extremely difficult. It is also going to be expensive, which immediately raises the “who pays?” question. Those who wish to evade this question—there are many, and they tend to be rich—seek delay by any available means, and in the next 10 years aggressively rosy predictions about carbon-dioxide removal—which would, if real, make a perfect case for delay—seem certain to play a leading role in their strategies.

In such a situation, with uncertainty layered upon complexity upon emergency, optimism is as much a danger as pessimism. For one thing, it is not at all obvious that we will manage to rapidly draw temperatures back down after they overshoot 1.5°C—Malm’s pessimism may, in the end, be well placed. For another, all efforts to honestly face the severity of our situation will be endlessly harried by soft-pedaling, false solutions, dangerous distractions, and lies. Politicians everywhere will want all the wiggle room they can get, and meanwhile the fossil cartel will move at every opportunity to deflect all efforts to mandate, or even discuss, the strategic demands of an actual planetary fossil-fuel phase out.

Al-Jaber was right: we need that roadmap.

On the Ground, with War in the Air

The climate negotiations are marked by endless skirmishing between global North and global South, which will not abate anytime soon. After all, the planet is still strongly structured by the “uneven and combined development” of the colonial past, and the countries of the global North still host the majority of the world’s wealth.

Despite this skirmishing, which has for decades kept fossil fuels off the negotiating agenda, COP28 saw the fossil phaseout challenge finally take center stage. Activists and diplomats alike saw this challenge as a litmus test that would show if the climate negotiations were fit for purpose. Will the negotiations take up the challenge, or can they be forever derailed and distracted, while the fossil cartel just continues its relentless, exterminist expansion? Perhaps we’ll know in a few years, but just now, after Dubai, a bit of guarded optimism may be in order.

To be sure, not everyone in Dubai connected the brutal logic of the climate reckoning to the larger geopolitical crisis, but this crisis hung palpably in the air. COP28 took place in the Arab world, and Gaza did not seem so very far away. The atrocity of the Israeli bombing continued day by excruciating day, and it could not be entirely separated from the discussions in the conference halls. The pain was acute within civil society circles. Demonstrations took place and were noticed, though they were marginalized by the COP’s security regime. Importantly, the ethos of the protest was an expansive one. The bombing, in particular, was not an isolated consequence of local hatreds. There were larger forces at work. The United States—which refused all talk of climate liability—was more than implicated. The term “settler colonialism” was heard again and again. The war, and war in general, was not a distant abstraction.

COPs are not mere climate meetings. The talk is not confined to carbon budgets and energy-system transformation. International debt relief, for example, is now front and center, as is the need for a radically new planetary finance architecture. The military budget—now over $2 trillion a year—is a common point of comparison, and a reminder that we routinely subsidize violence on a vast scale. The problem of climate is the problem of history, and history is suddenly a very big problem. As the Financial Times noted,

The anecdotal evidence that war is surging round the world is confirmed by the numbers. A recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies documented 183 ongoing conflicts around the world, the highest number in more than three decades. And that figure was arrived at before the outbreak of the war in Gaza.

The fraying of the world order is, obviously, a threat to climate cooperation. Beyond this, and beyond the fading illusion that the climate challenge will yield to simple interventions, we’re still only beginning to come to terms with its implacable sprawl. There is little chance of climate stabilization without a political-economic shift that makes robust cooperation possible, but such a shift isn’t going to come cheaply and easily, and simple stories will not help trigger it. How could they when the riddle of climate stabilization is as well the riddle of development, and the riddle of peace?

The Gaza bombing is now on the agenda of the International Court of Justice, where it has joined a crowded docket that includes climate change lawsuits and all manner of other infamies. Nor can these all be laid entirely at the feet of the global North. The two million people of Gaza are currently, and justly, in the spotlight, but spare a thought for another two million people, the Rohingya of Myanmar, who have been murdered and expelled by a huge and terrifying wave of anti-Muslim violence. Southern elites are not innocent.

And don’t forget Russia’s war in Ukraine, which, in addition to its immediate murderous consequences, is a milestone in the global right’s campaign against collective action, including climate action. It has certainly been an enormous setback to the Russian activist campaign for carbon neutrality.

Spinning the Outcome

During COP28’s second week, the negotiations were roiled by the leak of a letter that Haitham al-Ghais, the OPEC secretary general, had sent to the 13 members of OPEC. The letter warned that “pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences”, and argued that OPEC members must “proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e. fossil fuels rather than emissions.”

This was not an isolated move. There was also, by accounts, a great deal of arm twisting, and even a Saudi walkout. Jennifer Morgan, a long-time civil society climate strategist who is now Special Envoy at the German Foreign Ministry, went so far as to speculate that OPEC might be in “a bit of panic.” If so, the panic quickly passed. Once COP28 was over, the Saudis argued that the Dubai agreement to transition away from fossil fuels was entirely optional, just one of several “choices” on an “a la carte menu.”

First of all, the OPEC cartel, and the fossil cartel more generally, wants to prevent the transition away or phase down/out frames (the two are essentially equivalent) from taking hold, and argues instead that “emissions” (which can, it is said, be “captured”) are the real problem. This is the greenwashing strategy, and its partisans will use all available arguments in its service, including repeated references to energy justice. Al-Ghais, for example, explains that “Our goal must be to reduce emissions, which is the core objective of the Paris Agreement, while ensuring energy security and universal access to affordable energy.”

OPEC, moreover, has no intention of scaling back fossil fuel extraction. This could change (one must hope) but there is absolutely no chance that it will do so unless the great powers of the global North have already taken the lead and begun their own fossil fuel extraction phase out. Which is why the Biden administration’s decision to scrutinize and hopefully reject a wave of new LNG export terminals, if it survives the counterattacks, could mark a true turning point. Talk, after all, is cheap, and just because a country’s delegation supported phase down/out at COP28 (as did the U.S. delegation) this doesn’t mean its decision makers are ready, and able, to follow through. At the COP, many of them clearly weren’t, as is crisply shown in this December 2023 graphic from Carbon Brief:

Some countries, or rather the fossil powers within those countries, are planning even greater production increases than the United States is. Some of these (India and Nigeria) are clearly developing countries, while some (Canada, Russia, and Saudi Arabia) are not. Most all fossil-rich countries, whether their history lay with the global North or the global South, are still planning on exploiting their coal, oil, and gas resources for as long as they possibly can, though do note that China is at the encouraging bottom of the chart. All told, despite its complexities, the picture is grim.

At the same time, the climate reckoning is arriving, and it finds us everywhere divided between rich and poor. In consequence, the countries of the global South can continue to make compelling appeals to basic levels of developmental justice, and these appeals cannot be easily dismissed, even when they bleed into PR cover for continued fossil investment. The energy poverty of the global South is deadly real, as is its pressing need—and its right—to a viable development path, as are the obstacles that today’s world system strews in its path.

(Note that this chart is somewhat out of date – Azerbaijan, which holds the COP29 presidency, has since COP28 announced that it is planning on raising its gas production by a third.)

Moving Forward

To succeed, the fossil fuel phaseout roadmap must be reasonably detailed and properly funded. At the same time, it must sharply increase the development and build-out of low-carbon energy systems. In practice, this roadmap has to include nationally differentiated coal, oil, and gas extraction phaseout timeframes detailed enough to be useful to both government planners and political organizers, and financing strategies that can support them.

Given the emergency, these phaseout timeframes will be extremely challenging, as befits the goal of net-zero emissions by or around 2050. We have to be realistic about this, but it’s not a traditional realism that we’re after. Traditional realism tells us that the necessary timeframes are unachievable, in large part because countries always hew to their “national interests,” which can be only slowly changed. Climate realism, on the other hand, tells us that it’s the pace of the necessary decarbonization, not the politics of the day, that is immutable, that the problem of climate stabilization must be seen as a solution to a collective action problem, in which national interests rapidly change.

Collective action problems—commons problems—have a special relationship to justice. So, while I have no idea what the “orderly” part of “just, orderly, and equitable” is going to wind up meaning, I’m confident that justice and equity are going to be key to any successful climate transition.

But what kind of justice? And what shape must it take? These questions bring us back to Al-Jaber’s roadmap, the one for a “phase out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development.” It’s a bear of a problem, but lots of people are working on it. For starters, look at the work of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative. Or Phaseout Pathways for Fossil Fuel Production within Paris-Compliant Carbon Budgets, the Tyndell Centre report that Dan Calverley and Kevin Anderson published in 2022. Or Economic Diversification from Oil Dependency, a report Vincent Yu, a key G77 negotiator, wrote for the Third World Network. Or the many reports of the Civil Society Equity Review, an international collaborative that, full disclosure, I work closely with. The conversation is still in its early days, but there are lots of good ideas floating around.

Meanwhile, if we’re going to use terms like “economic diversification” and “developing countries,” let’s use them carefully. The challenges here involve “differentiation” between different kinds of countries and different kinds of circumstances, and they are anything but easy. The obvious example is the Gulf oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They may in some sense be developing countries, but they have the money to diversify their economies as they phase out fossil fuel extraction, in ways that other developing countries like Kenya or even India absolutely do not. Harder cases come when you consider countries like China, hybrids that are both developed and developing, or when you take inequality within countries into proper account. For example, Saudi Arabia is traditionally considered to be a developing country, while the United States is the richest country in the world, but both are brutally divided between rich and poor. Somehow, this has to matter.

At the end of the day, the biggest differentiation problem remains the one between the global North and the global South. The challenges here are now widely if not routinely recognized. In Dubai, soon after the COP28 decision was gaveled through, Avinash Persaud, now Barbados’ special climate envoy, noted that “Some activists were disappointed we didn’t commit to an immediate fossil fuel phase out. Still, without the trade, investment, and finance to achieve it, it would either have hit developing countries hardest or been meaningless.”

These points will have to be addressed as the finance challenge—the need for a global financial architecture that can support rapid climate transition—takes center stage. Which brings me to a new report – An Equitable Phase Out of Fossil Fuel Extraction: Towards a reference framework for a fast and fair rapid global phase out of coal, oil and gas—the preliminary version of which was released at COP28 by the Extraction Equity Working Group of the Civil Society Equity Review.

I can’t summarize this report here—though it does sport a fine executive summary—but I do want to explain why its subtitle includes the words “towards a reference framework.” The explanation, basically, is that a detailed climate transition roadmap is not yet possible. An Equitable Phase Out of Fossil Fuel Extraction thus proposes a framework by which to judge the steps that can be taken in the next few years, to at least indicate if they are fair and ambitious enough to have a real chance. To this end, it concentrates on calculating coal, oil, and gas phaseout dates for all major fossil fuel producing countries—here’s a scatterplot with the oil dates; scroll right or left for coal and gas—and on estimating the minimum level of annual international public finance that will be needed to support these phase outs.

This minimum is denominated in “hundreds of billions of dollars” a year.

An Equitable Phase Out of Fossil Fuel Extraction argues that, if we would limit warming to 1.5°C, all countries must immediately cease to build new fossil fuel extraction infrastructure. Further, wealthy fossil fuel producers whose overall economies are less dependent on fossil extraction—such as the United States, UK, Australia, Norway, Germany, and Canada—must phase out all fossil fuel extraction by 2031, while also providing significant financial support to poorer countries that are economically dependent on fossil fuel revenues and employment. Such poorer countries are given until 2050, though they too must be wrapping things up much earlier.

One key point, in all this, should never be forgotten. The “unrealistic” nature of these dates is not the result of any equity-side logic—in which we try to model a fair phase out—but rather derives from the implacable constraints imposed by the Earth’s nearly-depleted 1.5°C emissions budget. To push these deadlines out, say to 2060 or 2070, we must either weaken our temperature goal or we must assume—as the geoengineers will incessantly encourage us to do—that gigatons upon gigatons of carbon-dioxide can very soon, and affordably, and safely, be extracted from the climate system and “sequestered” away.

Back to the Ground

After Dubai, much of the left’s commentary focused on criticizing the late-game negotiations in which “phase out” was replaced by “transitioning away,” as if such diplomatic wordsmithing was only a watering down, as if it revealed the compromised truth at the core of a meaningless negotiation. For the activists embedded in the negotiations, the sense was different. They generally agreed that Dubai had “sent the necessary signal”—despite everything, the world’s governments have decided the fossil economy has to go.

Bill McKibben had the last word on this disagreement when he argued that the “transitioning away” phrase “will hang over every discussion from now on—especially the discussions about any further expansion of fossil fuel energy.” In a nutshell, he argued that the diplomats forged a tool and it’s up to us all to wield it.

The Dubai decision is of course limited. But its real weakness has more to do with loopholes and omissions than with any fine point of diplomatic wording. And the greatest of its omissions is financial: there is no agreement on how the phaseout will be funded. Harjeet Singh, now the Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, put the overall picture succinctly and well,

A long-overdue direction to move away from coal, oil, and gas has been set. Yet, the resolution is marred by loopholes that offer the fossil fuel industry numerous escape routes, relying on unproven, unsafe technologies. The hypocrisy of wealthy nations, particularly the USA, as they continue to expand fossil fuel operations massively while merely paying lip service to the green transition, stands exposed. Developing countries, still dependent on fossil fuels for energy, income, and jobs, are left without robust guarantees for adequate financial support in their urgent and equitable transition to renewables. COP28 recognised the immense financial shortfall in tackling climate impacts, but the final outcomes fall disappointingly short of compelling wealthy nations to fulfil their financial responsibilities—obligations amounting to hundreds of billions, which remain unfulfilled.

Harjeet is being diplomatic when he refers to “hundreds of billions,” a figure that echoes the one used in the Equitable Phase Out of Fossil Fuel Extraction report. It seems to be the formulation of choice these days, at least when civil society researchers and activists want to assert financial markers large enough to move the window, but small enough to be taken as realistic.

It’s important to understand that figures of this scale refer to public monies—grants and grant equivalents—and that they’ve lately been sharing the stage with references to trillions, which are typically private monies framed as “investments.” As in Dubai’s high-level Leader’s Declaration, which spoke of the opportunities that lay in “investing $5-7tn annually in greening the global economy by 2030.”

The elites are far more likely to deliver on private finance pledges than on public ones. Investment is something they know how to do. But a future defined by “investment” and “insurance” and “loans” and “aid” is unlikely be a future that takes proper account of even deep decarbonization, let alone the challenges of development in a climate-constrained world, let alone people-centered adaptation and an ethically defensible loss and damage response and recovery system. Which is to say that, unless we win a comprehensive climate finance breakthrough, all hope for a “fair, orderly, and equitable” transition will be abandoned in favor of a short-term neoliberal expediency that is unlikely to deliver the global just transition we actually need.

The challenge here encompasses everything from the historical responsibility of the global North to the debt crisis now wracking the global South to the inequality crisis raging in both North and South. Not to mention the crisis of democracy and the endless techno-economic complexities of the great rebuilding that’s now on the horizon. Bracket all this for now, but know that the next international battle will be fought over finance.

It’s about time.

Original source: Foreign Policy In Focus

Image credit: Some rights reserved by Friends of the Earth International, flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Environment, Finance and debt

沈黙を破る：2023年に見出しにならなかった10の人道危機

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:33:00 +0000

53405696292_903d9cd343_c.jpg

2年連続で、最も過小報告されている10の危機すべてがアフリカにあると、世界の忘れ去られた人道危機に関する CARE Internationalの最新報告書で報告されています。

2023年、バービーの新作映画に関するオンライン記事は世界中で 273,279 件ありましたが、アンゴラの人道危機に関する記事は1,049件のみでした。それにもかかわらず、アフリカ南部の国では700万人以上が干ばつ、洪水、飢餓の影響を受けています。

アンゴラは、昨年メディアの報道を最も受けなかった忘れ去られた人道危機トップ10の中で、再び第1位となりました。主要人道支援団体CAREが、こうした忘れ去られた危機に注意を喚起するために、報告書「沈黙を破る」を発表するのは8回目となります。

2023年ほど、世界の人道支援のニーズが高まったことはかつてなかった。シリアとトルコの地震、ウクライナ戦争、激化する中東紛争が見出しを占め、国際メディアの報道にもそのことが反映されていた。アフリカでは多くの危機が長期にわたって存在しており、そのため意識を高めることが困難になっている一方、国際報道の費用は高騰している。

- CARE Austriaのマネージング・ディレクター、アンドレア・バルシュドルフ・ハーガー氏は述べています。

紛争と気候危機によりアフリカの飢餓が増加  

忘れられていた10の危機はすべてアフリカにあります。リストで2番目のザンビアでは、135万人が飢餓の影響を受けています。ザンビアは特に気候変動の影響を受けています。新しいiPhone15に関する記事は25万件以上ありましたが、ザンビア危機に関するオンライン記事は2023年に1,371件しかありませんでした。

リストで3位のブルンジも、洪水などの気候関連の災害を定期的に経験しています。その結果、約7万人が避難を余儀なくされています。ブルンジでは、特に子供たちの間で栄養失調が大きな問題となっています。

「国連によると、2024年には世界中で約3億人が人道援助を必要とするだろう。そのうちのほぼ半数はアフリカにいる」

飢えはほとんどの場合人為的に引き起こされるということを忘れてはならない。紛争、経済的ショック、異常気象、貧困、不平等が主な要因である。命を救うためには、人道援助に対するさらなる関心と十分な資金が必要だ。

- CAREのグローバル人道ディレクター、ディープマラ・マーラ氏は付け加えました。

2023年に見出しにならなかった10の人道危機：

アンゴラ – 人道的ニーズを抱える730万人

ザンビア – ほとんど食べることができない135万人

ブルンジ – 慢性的な栄養失調に苦しむ560万人の子供たち

セネガル – 食料不安の影響を受ける140万人

モーリタニア – 4人に1人が貧困の中で暮らす

中央アフリカ共和国 – 世界で6番目に高い幼児死亡率

カメルーン – 6人に1人が人道的ニーズを抱える

ブルキナファソ – 貧困線以下で暮らす880万人

ウガンダ – 妊産婦死亡率は出生10万人あたり284人

ジンバブエ – 極貧の影響を受ける約800万人

Read the full report

Original source: CARE International

Image credit: Some rights reserved by UN Women Asia & the Pacific, flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Poverty and hunger, Inequality, Environment, War and conflict

Breaking the Silence: Ten humanitarian crises that didn’t make headlines in 2023

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2024 11:39:00 +0000

53405696292_903d9cd343_c.jpg

For the second year in a row, all ten of the most under-reported crises are in Africa, reports CARE International in their latest report on the world's forgotten humanitarian crises.

In 2023, there were 273,279 online articles worldwide about the new Barbie movie, but only 1,049 articles about the humanitarian crisis in Angola. Yet, more than seven million people have been affected by droughts, floods, and hunger in the Southern African country.

Angola is once again number one among the top ten forgotten humanitarian crises that received the least media attention last year. For the eighth time, leading humanitarian organization CARE is publishing its "Breaking the Silence" report to draw attention to these forgotten crises.

Global humanitarian needs have never been greater than in 2023. This was reflected in international media reporting as the earthquakes in Syria and Turkey, the war in Ukraine, and the escalating conflict in the Middle East have dominated the headlines. Many crises in Africa have existed for a long time which makes it challenging to raise awareness, while international reporting is becoming more expensive,

said Andrea Barschdorf-Hager, Managing Director of CARE Austria.

Conflicts and climate crisis increase hunger in Africa

All ten forgotten crises are in Africa. In Zambia, second on the list, 1.35 million people are affected by hunger. Zambia is particularly affected by the consequences of climate change. While there were over one quarter of a million articles about the new iPhone 15, there were just 1,371 online articles in 2023 about the crisis in Zambia.

Burundi, third on the list, also regularly experiences climate related disasters, such as flooding. Almost 70,000 people have been displaced as a result. Malnutrition is a major problem in Burundi, especially among children.

"According to the United Nations, around 300 million people worldwide will need humanitarian aid in 2024 - almost half of them in Africa."

We must not forget that hunger is almost always man-made. Conflicts, economic shocks, extreme weather, poverty, and inequality are key drivers. To save lives, we need more attention and sufficient funding for humanitarian aid,

added Deepmala Mahla, Global Humanitarian Director of CARE.

Ten humanitarian crises that did not make the headlines in 2023:

Angola – 7.3 million people with humanitarian needs

Zambia – 1.35 million people have too little to eat

Burundi – 5.6 million children suffer from chronic malnutrition

Senegal – 1.4 million people affected by food insecurity

Mauritania – One in four people live in poverty

Central African Republic – Sixth highest child mortality rate in the world

Cameroon – One in six people with humanitarian needs

Burkina Faso – 8.8 million people live below the poverty line

Uganda – Maternal mortality rate is 284 per 100,000 live births

Zimbabwe – Almost 8 million people affected by extreme poverty

Read the full report

Original source: CARE International

Image credit: Some rights reserved by UN Women Asia & the Pacific, flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Poverty and hunger, Inequality, Environment, War and conflict

‘Stop wars and step up ‘measly’ contributions’ to climate finance

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:11:00 +0000

sachs.jpeg

The United State’s contribution to the Loss and Damage Fund equals nine minutes of Pentagon spending, says Jeffrey D. Sachs, renowned economist and global leader in sustainable development.

While the Loss and Damage Fund promise was made at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, this was the first major milestone announced at COP28 in Dubai. So far, pledged contributions by various countries to the World Bank-hosted Loss and Damage Fund have reached USD 700 million. While this is a major step in the right direction, there are concerns that the fund is too small and that powerful nations are not doing enough to halt the pace and rate of climate change.

“The COP process is still a formalism, not a breakthrough. Yes, there is a new losses and damages fund, but it is tiny—USD 700 million pledged—compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars of climate-related losses each year,” Sachs says.

Estimates are that by 2030, the total estimate of loss and damage for developing countries could be between USD 290 billion and USD 580 billion; another says it is USD 400 billion per year and rising.

Africa is on the frontlines of the devastating effects of climate change, despite accounting for the smallest share of global greenhouse gas emissions—3.8 percent.

“The US pledged a measly USD 17.5 million, which equals nine minutes of Pentagon spending. All other financing remains tiny compared to the real needs. The US and Europe are engaged in war, not in climate financing. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza are the only things of interest to US foreign policy,” Sachs told IPS. “John Kerry is powerless in reality. He is there to give speeches. He has no authority to deliver any real policies.”

He says it is crucial to stop the wars; once that is done, real diplomacy could start.

“On to COP29, in a rapidly warming world of great danger. The first priority is to stop the wars, and that requires the world community to tell the US to stop the warmongering and to force Israel to stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Gaza. By stopping the wars, we could begin real climate diplomacy among the major fossil-fuel-producing countries. The top three fossil-fuel-producing countries are China, the US, and Russia. The three need to cooperate. That depends on a fundamental change in US foreign policy.”

The Loss and Damage Fund refers to the economic, social, and cultural losses and damages caused by anthropogenic climate change to natural and human systems. It is a vehicle to deliver climate justice to communities disproportionately affected by climate change. The climate injustice lies in the fact that, despite a low carbon footprint, developing countries are facing the full force of climatic changes, slowly wiping out their biodiversity and destroying lives, livelihoods, and cultural heritage.

Climate change is the most serious threat facing culture today. Globally, World Heritage properties are bearing the brunt of climate change, from increasing ocean acidification, desertification, droughts, floods, and fires related to rising temperatures. Climate change is slowly eradicating the African coast and its cultural heritage; 20 percent of Africa’s heritage sites are in danger.

Communities uprooted by climate-induced disasters are losing their ways of life, including the preservation of traditions for future generations. This is the cultural cost of climate change for many vulnerable communities, particularly indigenous people, who are currently suffering greatly from severe and drastic changes in weather patterns.

Vulnerable developing nations face greater risk from climate change and lack the funds to recover from climate events that have become increasingly frequent and more severe. While some losses from climate-induced disasters are impossible to recover from, such as loss of life, the fund is expected to help build better infrastructure after a severe climatic event.

While there is wide applause for the loss and damage fund, there is also criticism that the fund’s contributions at COP28 thus far cover less than 0.2 percent of climate-induced losses in developing countries. Additionally, powerful nations are reluctant to address critical issues such as phasing out fossil fuels that could significantly slow down climate change, giving Africa and other vulnerable nations in the global South much-needed relief.

“The United States political class is not serious. China is more interested. Only an end to the wars, followed by serious negotiations among the major fossil-fuel producers, will work. The top 10 fossil fuel producers are: China, US, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Iran, and Iraq. These 10 countries need to make serious, cooperative, and coordinated plans to phase out their production. They have not yet begun to hold such talks. In the meantime, funding for Africa is also seriously neglected,” Sachs says.

To reaffirm the 1.5°C-aligned energy transition, COP28 set out to firm up a number of ambitious goals, such as tripling global renewable energy generation capacity by 2030, doubling annual energy efficiency improvements by 2030, and an orderly decline in fossil fuel use demand by 2030, starting with no new coal plants.

The Summit further sought commitment from the oil and gas industry to align their strategies and investment portfolios with 1.5°C, with a focus on a 75 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2030. And financing mechanisms for a major scaling-up of clean energy investment in emerging and developing economies.

However, on Monday, December 11, 2023, the draft text of the agreement excluded the words “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels, instead only promising to reduce oil and gas, and several countries, including Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, and Japan, said they would not sign what would essentially be “death certificates for many small island states.”

The first-ever global stocktake, released in October 2023 ahead of the Dubai Summit, revealed that the world is not on track to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. It is the first time that a UN climate summit has surveyed progress towards achieving the goals agreed in 2015, following the landmark Paris COP.

The stocktake report is akin to an inventory, as it looked at everything related to where the world stands on climate action and support. It provides a critical turning point. At COP28, UN member states will negotiate their response to the stocktake’s findings, looking at the state of planet Earth, and chart the best course for the survival of both planet and humankind.

Original source / Image credit: Inter Press Service

Filed under:

Environment, War and conflict

「戦争を止めて気候変動資金への『貧弱な』貢献を増大」

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:17:00 +0000

sachs.jpeg

損失と損害の基金への米国の拠出額は国防総省の支出の9分に相当すると、著名な経済学者で持続可能な開発の世界的リーダーであるジェフリー・D・サックス氏は言います。

損失と損害の基金の約束はエジプトのシャルム・エル・シェイクで開催されたCOP27でなされましたが、これはドバイでのCOP28で発表された最初の大きな重要なポイントでした。これまでのところ、世界銀行が主催を務めた損失と損害の基金に対して各国が約束した拠出額は7億ドルに達しました。これは正しい方向への大きな一歩ではありますが、基金が少なすぎることや、強国が気候変動のペースと度合いを止めるのに十分な努力をしていないのではないかという懸念もあります。

「COPプロセスはまだ形式的なものであり、画期的なものではない。確かに、新たな損失と損害基金は設けられているが、毎年数千億ドルの気候関連損失に比べれば、約束された額は7億ドルと微々たるものだ」とサックス氏は言います。

2030年までに、発展途上国の損失と損害の総額は2,900億ドルから5,800億ドルになる可能性があると推定されています；別の推定によると、年間4,000億ドルであり、さらに増加します。

アフリカは、世界の温室効果ガス排出量に占める割合が3.8%と最も少ないにもかかわらず、気候変動の壊滅的な影響の最前線にいます。

「米国が約束したのはわずか1,750万ドルで、これは国防総省の出費の9分に相当する。他のすべての資金調達は、実際のニーズに比べて依然としてわずかなものだ。米国と欧州は気候変動対策への資金提供ではなく、戦争に従事している。ウクライナとガザでの戦争は米国の外交政策にとって唯一の関心事だ」とサックス氏はIPSに語りました。「ジョン・ケリーは現実には無力だ。彼はスピーチのためにそこにいる。彼には実際の政策を実現する権限はない」

彼は、戦争を止めることが重要だと言います；それがなされれば、本当の外交の始まりが可能になるでしょう。

「急速に温暖化が進む大きな危険を伴う世界でCOP29へ。最優先事項は戦争を止めることであり、そのためには国際社会が米国に戦争挑発をやめるよう伝え、イスラエルにガザで進行中の民族浄化を止めるよう強制する必要がある。戦争を止めれば、主要な化石燃料産出国の間で真の気候外交を始めることができる。化石燃料生産国のトップ3は中国、米国、ロシアだ。この3カ国は協力する必要がある。それは米国の外交政策の根本的な変革にかかっている」

損失と損害の基金は、人為的気候変動によって自然および人間のシステムに引き起こされる経済的、社会的、文化的な損失と損害を指します。これは、気候変動の影響を不当に受けている地域社会に気候正義をもたらす手段です。気候不正義は、二酸化炭素排出量が低いにもかかわらず、発展途上国が気候変動の全面的な影響に直面し、生物多様性が徐々に破壊され、生命、生業、文化遺産が破壊されているという事実にあります。

気候変動は、今日文化が直面している最も深刻な脅威です。世界的には、海洋酸性化の進行、砂漠化、干ばつ、洪水、気温上昇に伴う火災など、世界遺産が気候変動の矢面に立たされています。気候変動により、アフリカの海岸とその文化遺産が徐々に消滅しつつあります。アフリカの遺産の20パーセントが危険にさらされています。

気候変動による災害によって根こそぎにされたコミュニティは、将来の世代への伝統の維持を含め、生活様式を失いつつあります。これは、多くの脆弱なコミュニティ、特に先住民族にとって気候変動の文化的コストであり、彼らは現在、気象パターンの深刻かつ急激な変化に大きく苦しんでいます。

脆弱な発展途上国は、気候変動による大きなリスクに直面しており、ますます頻繁かつ深刻になる気候変動の被害から回復するための資金が不足しています。人命の損失など、気候変動の災害による損失の一部は回復が不可能ですが、この基金は深刻な気候変動の後により良いインフラを構築するのに役立つことが期待されています。

損失と損害基金には広く称賛の声が上がっていますが、COP28での基金のこれまでの拠出額は、途上国の気候変動による損失の0.2％にも満たないという批判もあります。さらに、強国は、気候変動を大幅に遅らせる可能性がある化石燃料の段階的廃止などの重要な問題に取り組み、アフリカやグローバル・サウスの他の脆弱な国々に切望されている救済を与えることに消極的です。

「米国の政治階級は真剣ではなく、中国の方が関心が高い。戦争を終わらせ、それに続いて、主要な化石燃料生産国の間で真剣に交渉することしか効果がないだろう。化石燃料生産国のトップ10は、中国、米国、ロシア、インド、サウジアラビア、インドネシア、オーストラリア、カナダ、イラン、イラクだ。これら10か国は、段階的に生産を停止するための真剣かつ協力的かつ協調的な計画を立てる必要がある。彼らはまだそのような協議を始めていない。その一方で、アフリカへの資金提供も著しく軽視されている」とサックス氏は言います。 

1.5℃に合わせたエネルギー転換を再確認するために、COP28は、2030年までに世界の再生可能エネルギー発電能力を3倍にすること、2030年までに年間エネルギー効率の改善を2倍にすること、新しい石炭火力発電所をゼロにして、2030年までに化石燃料の使用量を秩序正しく減少させることなど、多くの野心的な目標を固めることに着手しました。

サミットはさらに、2030年までにメタン排出量を75パーセント削減することに焦点を当て、戦略と投資ポートフォリオを1.5℃に合わせて調整するという石油・ガス業界のコミットメントを求めました。また、新興国および発展途上国におけるクリーンエネルギー投資の大幅な拡大のための資金調達メカニズムも求めました。

しかし、2023年12月11日月曜日の協定草案では、化石燃料の「段階的廃止」または「段階的削減」という言葉が削除され、代わりに石油とガスの削減のみが約束され、オーストラリア、米国、英国、カナダ、日本を含むいくつかの国は、実質的に「多くの小さな島嶼国の死亡証明書」となるものに署名しないと述べました。

ドバイ・サミットに先立って2023年10月に発表された史上初のグローバル・ストックテイクでは、世界がパリ協定で定められた目標の達成に向けた軌道に乗っていないことが明らかになりました。画期的なパリCOPに続き、国連気候サミットが2015年に合意された目標達成に向けた進捗状況を調査するのは初めてのことです。

このストックテイク報告書は、気候変動対策と支援に関する世界の立場に関連するあらゆるものを調査したもので、商品目録に似ています。それは重要な転換点をもたらします。COP28では、国連加盟国は地球の現状を検討しながらストックテイクの調査結果に対する対応を交渉し、地球と人類の両方の生存のための最善の道を計画することになります。

Original source / Image credit: Inter Press Service

Filed under:

Environment, War and conflict

先住民族と気候正義団体、COP28は「業務平常通り」

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:07:00 +0000

53376675120_c0bd8a63b0_z.jpg

先進国の指導者らが化石燃料からの「脱却」を目指すCOP28合意を歴史的だと称賛する中、先住民族、最前線のコミュニティ、気候正義団体がこの合意を不公正かつ不公平であり、業務平常通りだとして非難しました。

グローバル・ストックテイク（GST）、そして国連の協議全体は、地球温暖化を抑制するために化石燃料を段階的に廃止または段階的に削減するかの合意に達することができるかどうかによって支配されました。 

多くの先進国は、石炭、石油、ガスの段階的な廃止を公的に強く推し進めましたが、米国に限っては「衰えない」石炭に対してのみ警告がありました。対照的に、発展途上国の多くは、世界の気温上昇を産業革命以前の水準から1.5度（2.7度）に抑えることを望んでいるにも関わらず、化石燃料からの脱却への取り組みは裕福な汚染国が最初に移行し、「公正で、資金が供給され、迅速」でなければならないと一貫して述べています。最終的には、石油とガスの埋蔵量が多い裕福な国が明確な勝者となりました。

最終合意では、化石燃料を燃やすことで富を得た米国、英国、カナダ、EUなどの先進国は気候変動の最大の責任を負っていますが、この歴史的責任は認識されていません。この差異ある責任の問題とは別個でありながらも関連しているのが、実施手段です：先進国が負担を負い、発展途上国が気候危機に取り組み適応するのを支援する義務です。気候正義の擁護者らによると、どちらもGSTに含まれていないため、最終協定には公平性が欠けているということになります。

クライメート・ウォッチ・タイランドのワヌン・ペルムピブル氏は、「裕福な汚染者が公平性や正義を装うことすら放棄し、傲慢にも責任を回避する、またしても恥ずべきCOPだ」と述べました。「彼らは気候変動の擁護者として見せびらかす一方で、グローバル・サウスの人々やコミュニティは、自分たちが引き起こしたわけではない危機の余波に苦しんでいる」

バングラデシュ環境弁護士協会およびフレンズ・オブ・ザ・アース・バングラデシュのバレシュ・チョードリー氏は、「資金も実行手段もなければ、気候変動の最も大きな打撃を受けた場所には空っぽのサイフと空虚な約束だけが残されることになる。私たちには何十億ドルも必要だが、微々たる資金が与えられているだけで、おまけにさらに多くの借金も抱えている」。バングラデシュは、異常気象や海面上昇などのゆっくりとした影響に対して最も脆弱な国の一つです。

GSTは、2015年のパリ協定で定められた法的拘束力のある目標の達成に向けた集団的な進捗状況に関する最初の評価であり、重要なことに、今後の気候変動対策の目標も定めることになります。GSTの目標と野心を資金調達に結びつけられないということは、発展途上国は、先進国からの資金提供と実施に関する明確な約束がないまま、緩和と適応のための今後の国家気候行動計画に取り組み始める必要があることを意味します。

マレーシアの第三世界ネットワークの気候変動政策専門家ミーナ・ラマン氏は、「先進国は基本的に、多くを諦めることなく、望むものはすべて手に入れた」と述べました。「ここには公平性はない」

また、GSTは、炭素回収と貯蔵、ブルー水素、炭素市場、安全対策が取るに足らない地球工学など、高価でニッチでほとんど効果のない削減技術への扉を大きく開いており、主に先住民族やその他の有色人種のコミュニティにとっておそらくさらなる土地強奪、水不足、致命的な汚染につながる可能性があります。

地球上で最も気候変動を受けやすい地域のいくつかが加盟する小島嶼国連合は、GSTには「抜け穴が数多くある」と述べました。

チャド代表のヒンドゥ・イブラヒム氏は、「彼らは人々の意見に耳を傾けなかった…（GSTには）公正な移行を実行するために企業がインフラを建設し鉱物を採掘する明確な許可が含まれている」と語りました。それによって誰が利益を得るのか？土地と資源の周囲に住む人々の保護と尊重の文言を入れずに、企業に許可を与えることはできない」

GSTはまた、「暫定燃料がエネルギー安全保障を確保しながらエネルギー移行を促進する役割を果たすことができると認識している」ため、ガスに命綱を与えているようです。これは、膨大な埋蔵量と拡大計画を持つ米国やロシアをはじめとする国々を確実に喜ばせることになるでしょう。

先住民環境ネットワークのディレクターでCOPのベテランであるトム・ゴールドトゥース氏は次のように述べました。「私たちは、化石燃料汚染者と裕福な政府が発展途上国を操作して、気候変動に対する実際の行動を弱体化させているのを直接見てきた…[一方で]化石燃料に対する私たちの燃料段階廃止の強いメッセージには聞く耳を持たず、むしろ偽りの解決策がさらに増えて気候変動と森林破壊が加速するだろう…国連の気候変動会議は人類と母なる地球を失望させている」

GSTはCOP28の大半を占めましたが、議題となった他の重要な問題には、適応に関する世界目標（GGA）が含まれていました。これは、適応のための政治的行動と資金を緩和と同じ規模で推進するという共同の公約ですが、先進国によって8年間阻止され遅れています。アフリカのグループは、適応の進展はアフリカ大陸にとって「生死に関わる」問題だと繰り返し述べていましたが、２週間にわたる緊迫した交渉を経て失望させられたままになりました。

「文章がとても弱い。私たちが多くの意見や提案を行ったにもかかわらず、私たちの見解は組入られておらず、議論は曖昧なままになっている」とアフリカ人グループのGGA交渉担当者クルスーム・オマリ氏は語りました。「実施手段に関する文言は依然として非常に弱く、パリ協定に基づく義務が考慮されていない」

COPの交渉はコンセンサスによって行われます。小槌が下りる前に、すべての国が同意する必要があります。では、最終結果に不満を示していたアフリカ諸国、小島嶼国、その他の国々はなぜ譲歩したのでしょうか？COPのベテラン監視員であるラマン氏によると、先進国が一歩も引かず立ち去ると脅す中、貧しい発展途上国が抵抗して立場を維持するのは難しいということです。

「最終的には、コンセンサスは最も権力のある者によって動かされる」と彼女は言いました。

Original source: The Guardian

Image credit: Some rights reserved by Presidencebenin, flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Environment, Corporate power

新しい報告書：先進国は気候危機への取り組みで公平な分担を果たしていない

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:51:00 +0000

53378893543_88ffdbaa86_z.jpg

気候変動の差し迫った課題に取り組む共同努力として、社会運動、環境・開発NGO、労働組合、宗教団体を代表する市民社会団体の世界連合は、各国が気候危機に取り組むために公平な分担を果たしているかどうかについての新たなレビューを発表しました。

報告書「The 2023 Fair Shares Deficit: A Civil Society Equity Review of the NDCs and 2035 Mitigation Fair Shares（2023年の公平な分担の赤字：NDCと2035年の緩和の公正な分担に関する市民社会公平性レビュー）」では、厳選された国が決定する貢献（NDC）の科学と公平性に基づいた分析が示されています。最新のNDCに明示されている現在の野心を精査し、地球温暖化を1.5℃に抑えるために必要な各国の取り組みの公平な分担と比較します。

同報告書は、いくつかのNDCで野心が高まっているにもかかわらず、全体の野心は気温上昇を1.5℃に抑える方向に世界を導くための経路は依然として著しく未達であることを明らかにしました。

「証拠は、私たちがこの危機に対応するためにまだ十分な行動をとっていないことを示している。現在の排出量は依然として人類史上最高レベルにあり、私たちは軌道から大きく逸脱しており、気温上昇を1.5℃に抑える窓口は急速に閉ざされつつある」とWWFのNDC強化リードのシャーリー・マセソン氏は述べました。

注目すべきことに、現在、公平なシェアのNDCを満たしている先進国または裕福国はありません。報告書は、2030年の達成と2035年の目標設定に向けて、国内および国際的な支援を通じて、野心を高めることが緊急に必要であると強調しています。

「公平な分担は道徳的な優先事項であるだけでなく、実際的かつ実用的なものだ。世界は、公平かつ公正な分担報告書なしにパリ協定の気温目標を達成することはないだろう」とアクションエイドUSAのシニア政策アナリスト、ケリー・ストーン氏は述べました。「今日の報告書は、米国が依然としてどれほど劣勢に立たされているかを示している。これは歴史上最大の排出国としては受け入れ難いことだ。私たちは米国やその他の裕福な先進国に対し、公平な分担を果たす責任を負わせなければならない。それを怠り続けることは、最前線のコミュニティにとって惨事だ」

Civil Society Equity Review（市民社会公平性レビュー）は2015年に召喚され、それ以来500を超えるグループ、組織、運動がその分析、調査結果、推奨事項を支持してきました。

この新しい報告書の分析は、現在のNDCに焦点を当てたこれまでのCivil Society Equity Reviewsを超えて拡張され、2015年から現在までに特定の国が実施した気候変動対策を調査しています。これには、この8年間の公平な分担の経路を構成するものと実際の進展との比較が含まれます。

また、来年にかけて新たなNDCが進展することを見越して、2035年の公平な分担に基づく緩和目標を設定し、各国に公平な分担に基づくNDCを履行するよう要求する行動喚起を発しています。これには、2030年に向けて更新されたNDCと、以下を反映した2035年に向けた新しいNDCの策定が含まれます：

公平な分担に基づく緩和目標。
国内で対処できない国々に対する国際的な支援。
公正、完全、迅速かつ公平な化石燃料の段階的廃止への取り組み。
公正な移行への取り組み。
コミュニティを危険にさらす誤った解決策や危険な妨害行為の拒否。

この報告書の発表は、気候変動と闘うための現在断続する世界的な取り組みにおける重要な瞬間を示しています。この調査結果は、公平な分担の約束を果たし、気候危機の深刻な結果を回避するための即時かつ野心的な行動の緊急性を強調しています。

Read the full report: www.equityreview.org/extraction-equity-2023

この記事は元々WWF によって発表されたもので、WWFとの編集協力の一環としてここに再掲載されています。

Original source: Impakter

Image credit: Some rights reserved by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Inequality, Environment

COP28で、国際金融アーキテクチャを変革する時が来ました

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:47:00 +0000

49388002437_7b507d3e51_z.jpg

国際金融システムは化石燃料を永らえさせ、脆弱な国々に借金を負わせて、公正なエネルギー転換を遅らせている、とオイル・チェンジ・インターナショナルのブロンウェン・タッカー氏とシェリーン・タラート氏は書いています。

第二次世界大戦後、世界銀行と国際通貨基金（IMF）が中心となり、新たな国際経済ルールと公的金融機関が設立されました。

この国際金融アーキテクチャは、低所得国や戦争で荒廃した国の再建と発展を支援することを目的として構築されました。

しかし、この制度には、富裕国に意思決定において大き過ぎる発言権を与えるなど、当初から根本的な欠陥がありました。80年が経った今、国際金融政策、貿易、税金、債務を管理するルールは、世界的な不平等を促進するだけでなく、気候変動も促進しており、根本的な再考が必要です。

過去8年間、気候変動の加速的な影響がますます顕著になり、化石燃料を段階的に廃止する必要があるという世界的なコンセンサスにもかかわらず、世界銀行は石油、ガス、石炭プロジェクトに少なくとも170億ドルの資金を費やしてきました。

OECDから世界貿易機関に至るまで、残りのアーキテクチャはさらに大規模な化石燃料補助金を促進しています。

これらの補助金の影響は明らかです。2023年だけでも、洪水によりケニア、ギリシャ、ブルガリア、リビアが壊滅的な被害を受け；熱帯低気圧がマダガスカル、モザンビーク、マラウイを襲い；そして極度の暑さ、山火事、干ばつは他の数え切れないほどの国に広がっています。

気候変動に対する無策の中心にあるのは、気候変動を引き起こすことにおいてほとんど責任のない国が最悪の影響を被っているという事実です。新型コロナウイルス感染症とエネルギーと食料の価格高騰に未だに苦しむ低所得国にとって、気候変動や異常気象への対応は不可能になっています。

気候変動の影響を受けやすい国の多くは、国民を守るために必要な援助や適応への資金提供をIMFに頼ってきましたが、そのために莫大な借金を背負い、法外な利子や課徴金を支払っています。

平均して、アフリカ諸国が国際市場でお金を借りるには富裕国に比べて5倍の費用がかかり、低所得国全体では気候変動への対応よりも12倍の金額を債務返済に費やしています。

IEAは、化石燃料を段階的に廃止し、100%再生可能経済を構築するには、低所得国が気候変動への取り組みに年間2兆8,000億ドルを費やす必要があると推定しています。これは現在支出されている金額の4倍です。すでに固定化されている気候への影響に対処するには、さらに何兆もの資金が必要です。

気候変動と不正な金融システムの両方に対する歴史的責任を考えると、これらの費用の大部分を支払わなければならないのは富裕国の政府です。しかし彼らは何十年もの間、その余裕はないと言い続け、代わりに少額の公的資金を活用して必要なものへの民間投資を呼び込むことができると提案してきました。

しかし、このアプローチでは必要な資金を供給できずに何度も失敗し、不当な債務負担が増大することが多々ありました。

真実は、これらの費用をカバーするための公的資金が不足しているわけではありません。COP28では、富裕国の指導者が重要な最初の一歩を踏み出す必要があります。

私たちは彼らが化石燃料への資金提供をやめ、代わりにその資金を気候変動対策に充てるために早期の進展を積み上げる必要があります。彼らは金利を引き下げ、不当な債務を帳消しにすることに同意しなければなりません。

そして、汚染産業への課税や超富裕層への課税、特別引出権（SDR）として知られるIMF準備資産の再分配などの新たな資金源を承認しなければなりません。

これらの措置は私たち全員に利益をもたらします。開発と気候変動に対する国際公的資金のより大規模かつ公平な流れは、世界的に公正なエネルギー移行を可能にし、雇用を創出し、紛争や強制移住のリスクを軽減します。

これを求めているのは市民社会だけではありません。こうした呼びかけには、バルバドスのミア・モトリー首相、ケニアのウィリアム・ルト大統領、ブラジルのルーラ・ダ・シルバ大統領、コロンビアのグスタボ・ペトロ大統領のほか、ジェイソン・ヒッケル氏やマリアナ・マッツカート氏などの著名な学者も参加しています。

私たちの要求が合わさって、ここ数十年で見たことのないほど、世界の金融構造を変える勢いが生まれました。

今日はCOP28のファイナンスデーです。富裕国の指導者には、政治的意志と団結を示し、気候危機に立ち向かうのに適した民主的な金融構造に向けた機運を高める大きな機会があります。

注目すべき重要な瞬間には、気候変動に基金に関するハイレベルラウンドテーブルや、気候変動にレジリエントな債務条項、SDR、イノベーションに関するセッションが含まれます。

気候変動の影響を受けやすい国々には信頼できる手頃な資金が必要であり、国際金融機関はそれを提供するために変革される必要があります。

世界が「地獄のような」3℃の温暖化に向かう中、これが1.5℃の可能性を残す唯一の方法です。発展途上国は最前線にあり、世界は彼らにその責任を負っています。

ブロンウェン・タッカー氏はオイル・チェンジ・インターナショナルのグローバル公共財務マネージャーであり、シェリーン・タラート氏は経済、開発、生態学的正義のためのMenaFemMovementのディレクターです。

Original source: Thomson Reuters Foundation

Image credit: Some rights reserved by Adam Cohn, flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Environment, Finance and debt

Developed countries not doing their fair share in tackling climate crisis, new report shows

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:00:00 +0000

53378893543_88ffdbaa86_z.jpg

In a collective effort to address the pressing challenges of climate change, a global coalition of civil society organizations — representing social movements, environmental and development NGOs, trade unions, and faith groups — have published a new review of whether countries are doing their fair share to tackle the climate crisis.

The report, “The 2023 Fair Shares Deficit: A Civil Society Equity Review of the NDCs and 2035 Mitigation Fair Shares,” presents a science- and equity-based analysis of a select number of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It scrutinizes the current ambitions articulated in updated NDCs and compares them with the fair share of each country’s effort needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

It finds that, despite increased ambition in several NDCs, collective ambition still falls significantly short of what is required to steer the world on a path to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.

“The evidence shows we are not yet doing enough to respond to this crisis. With current emissions still at their highest level in human history, we are way off course, and the window to limit warming to 1.5ºC is rapidly closing,” said WWF’s NDC Enhancement Lead, Shirley Matheson.

Notably, no developed or affluent countries are presently meeting their fair share NDCs. The report emphasizes the urgent need for increased ambition, both domestically and through international support, in achieving 2030 and setting 2035 targets.

“Fair shares is not only a moral priority but a practical and pragmatic one. The world will not limit the Paris Agreement temperature goal without an equitable and fair shares report,” said Kelly Stone, Senior Policy Analyst at ActionAid USA. “Today’s report shows how far short the US is falling, still. This is unacceptable from the biggest historical emitter. We must hold the US and other rich developed countries accountable to do their fair share. Continued failure to do so is a disaster for frontline communities."

The Civil Society Equity Review was convened in 2015 and since then over 500 groups, organizations and movements have endorsed its analyses, findings and recommendations.

This new report’s analysis extends beyond previous Civil Society Equity Reviews’ focus on the current NDCs, examining climate actions undertaken by specific countries between 2015 and today. This includes a comparison of what would have constituted a fair share pathway over these eight years with the actual developments.

It also sets out fair share mitigation targets for 2035, in anticipation of new NDCs being developed over the next year, and issues a call to action, demanding that countries deliver on fair share NDCs. This includes updated NDCs for 2030 and the formulation of new NDCs for 2035, reflecting:

Fair share mitigation targets.
International support for countries surpassing domestic potential.
Commitments to a fair, full, fast, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout.
Commitments to a just transition.
Rejection of false solutions or dangerous distractions that endanger communities.

This report launch marks a critical moment in the ongoing global efforts to combat climate change. The findings underscore the urgency of immediate and ambitious actions to meet fair share commitments and avert the severe consequences of the climate crisis.

Read the full report: www.equityreview.org/extraction-equity-2023

This article was originally published by WWF and is republished here as part of an editorial collaboration with WWF.

Original source: Impakter

Image credit: Some rights reserved by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Inequality, Environment

At COP28, it’s time to transform the global financial architecture

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:36:00 +0000

49388002437_7b507d3e51_z.jpg

The global finance system is giving fossil fuels a lifeline, indebting vulnerable countries and delaying a just energy transition, writes Bronwen Tucker and Shereen Talaat for Oil Change International.

In the wake of World War II, a new set of international economic rules and public financial institutions were created, with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the centre.

This global financial architecture was set up with the aim of helping low-income and war-ravaged countries to rebuild and develop.

But this system had a fundamental flaw from the start, giving rich countries an outsized say in decision making. Eighty years on, the rules governing international monetary policy, trade, tax and debt are not just fuelling global inequality, but climate change too. They need a fundamental rethink.

In the last eight years, in spite of the increasingly visible accelerating impacts of climate change, and global consensus that we need to phase out fossil fuels, the World Bank has spent at least $17 billion funding oil, gas, and coal projects.

From the OECD to the World Trade Organization, the rest of the architecture is facilitating even larger fossil fuel subsidies.

The impacts of these handouts are clear. In 2023 alone, floods have devastated Kenya, Greece, Bulgaria,and Libya; tropical cyclones have torn through Madagascar, Mozambique and Malawi; and extreme heat, wildfires and droughts have spread across countless other countries.

At the heart of climate inaction is the fact that countries who are doing the least to cause climate change are experiencing the worst impacts. Responding to climate change and extreme weather has become unaffordable for low-income nations still reeling from Covid-19 and energy and food price hikes.

Many climate-vulnerable countries have looked to the IMF to finance the aid and adaptation necessary to protect their populations, but this has saddled them with huge debt, on which they pay exorbitant interest and surcharges.

On average, it costs African countries five times more to borrow money on international markets than rich countries, and low income countries overall spend 12 times more on debt repayments than addressing climate change.

To phase out fossil fuels and build a 100% renewable economy, the IEA estimates that low- income countries will need to spend $2.8 trillion a year on tackling climate change. That’s four times what is currently being spent. Trillions more are needed to address the climate impacts already locked in.

Given their historic responsibility for both climate change and our rigged financial system, it is rich country governments that must pay the bulk of these costs. But for decades, they have said they cannot afford to, proposing instead that small amounts of public finance can be used to attract private investment in what is needed.

But this approach has repeatedly failed to deliver the needed funds, and often added to unfair debt burdens.

The truth is, there is no shortage of public money to cover these costs. At COP28, we need wealthy country leaders to take some key first steps.

We need them to build on early progress to stop funding fossil fuels and put this money towards climate solutions instead. They must agree to reduce interest rates and cancel unfair debts.

And they must approve new sources of funding like levies on polluting industries, taxes on the super rich, and redistributing IMF reserve assets known as Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).

These measures will benefit all of us. Larger and fairer flows of international public funding for development and climate change will enable a global just energy transition, create jobs, and reduce the risk of conflict and forced migration.

It’s not just civil society asking for this. These calls have been voiced by Barbados’s Mia Mottley, Kenya’s William Ruto, Brazil’s Lula da Silva and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro, as well as leading academics such as Jaso Hickel and Mariana Mazucatto.

Together, our demands have created more momentum to change the global financial architecture than we have seen in decades.

Today is Finance Day at COP28. Wealthy country leaders have a huge opportunity to demonstrate political will and solidarity, and to increase momentum towards a democratic financial architecture fit to tackle the climate crisis.

Key moments to watch out for include the High Level Roundtable on Climate Finance and sessions on Climate Resilient Debt Clauses, SDRs and Innovation.

Climate-vulnerable countries need affordable and dependable finance, and international financial institutions need to transform to provide it.

With the world on track for a ‘hellish’ 3C of heating, this is the only way 1.5 will remain a possibility. Developing countries are on the frontline and the world owes them this.

Bronwen Tucker is the global public finance manager at Oil Change International, and Shereen Talaat is the director of the MenaFemMovement for Economic, Development and Ecological Justice.

Original source: Thomson Reuters Foundation

Image credit: Some rights reserved by Adam Cohn, flickr creative commons

Filed under:

Environment, Finance and debt