Throughout COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, indigenous peoples, politicians from the Global South and climate activists faced systemic repression ranging from large-scale arrests, limited transportation, no interpreters for events, etc. As these groups called for reforms by the Global North, their voices appeared to fall on deaf ears while politicians from the United States, the EU, Canada and more pushed alternatives such as green hydrogen as the way of the future as opposed to a full phase-out of fossil fuels. 

From the beginning of week one, the United States remained firm on its position to not add finances to an additional loss and damage fund, which was a non-negotiable matter for the G-77 and China. As a result, at one point during the talks, these countries suggested they were willing to walk out if such finances were not provided, and while the countries continued to negotiate this issue, due to a lack of consensus, the talks were extended by two additional days. It was in this short extension time that everything drastically shifted.

On Saturday morning, the talks “appeared close to collapse.” Beyond the unresolved issue of a loss and damage fund, debates surrounding clear language on a fossil fuel phase-out and even the inclusion of language surrounding human rights remained. However, the unity of the Global South and civil society positively influenced the final outcomes of negotiations and pushed for an agreed upon resolution that included elements of climate justice. As a result of the outcome, many individuals, such as Ephraim Mwepya Shitima, the chairman of the African Group of Negotiators noted how they “’will be going back smiling’” because the final resolution passed in COP27, the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan, “’is a victory, not only for Africa, but for developing nations.’”

The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan makes tremendous strides in addressing a just transition into renewable energy by recognizing “the important role of indigenous peoples, local communities, cities and civil society, including youth and children, in addressing and responding to climate change.” The resolution also places an emphasis on “common but differentiated responsibilities” and acknowledges the significance of both the cryosphere and oceans when combating the climate crisis. Beyond these efforts to ensure an “equitable transition,” one of the most important elements of the Implementation Plan is the fact that it includes the highly contested loss and damage fund. The resolution ensures that the Global North will establish a fund for those “particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.”

The plan also “[r]esolves to pursue further efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5*C,” yet regardless of this effort and the progress in the realm of climate justice, many scholars have argued that there was actually backsliding on the question of fossil fuel phase-down. In Article 4.13, rather than arguing for a complete phase-out of coal and all other fossil fuels, the text calls for a “phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” Therefore, there is no concrete language to firmly address the driver of climate change – fossil fuels. 

Similar to how civil society and the Global South pushed for a loss and damage fund along with a just transition, the fossil fuel delegation, one of the largest groups at the COP numbering at 636, pushed their own agenda. The efforts of the fossil fuel delegation, which increased 25% from last year, effectively worked with oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia to limit the mention of fossil fuels. As a result, the executive vice president of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans highlights how the final resolution, “puts unnecessary barriers in the way and allows the parties to shy away from their responsibilities.”

Overall, there are many outcomes from COP27, but one of the most significant is the progress made in terms of climate justice. For the first time, there are concrete steps to establishing a loss and damage fund for the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

Yet, there remain many concerns as to the true efficacy of the COP process. As thousands gather from around the world, many of the most powerful decision-makers on privately chartered flights, there remains continued co-optation and repression from the voices most affected by the issue. In contrast, the fossil fuel industry remains one of the most influential delegations, despite their inherent conflict of interest, and they directly impacted the results of COP27. However, given the tumultuous history of the international climate regime and the tangible process that was established in COP27, Sharm el-Sheikh can be largely viewed in a positive light.

Next year, COP28 will be held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates which will present additional challenges beyond those of Egypt. Questions as to the further repression of civil society have already been raised, and discussions about increased accessibility remain to be seen. But after two weeks of hostile negotiations, an agreed-upon Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan that includes a loss and damage fund and has kept the hopes of 1.5°C still alive is a welcomed outcome. 

The post The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan: Climate Justice, Backsliding and Co-optation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While this monumental achievement shows promise in fulfilling the needs of less developed countries, it proves to be most significant for the Pacific Islands, a region at the frontline of the climate crisis. Access to adequate climate finance has been a crucial factor in the region’s ability to combat the effects of climate change but it continues to fall short. According to a report by Oxfam, in 2017-2018, 20.5% of all funding for climate resilience went to Less Developed Countries (LDCs) with only 3% going to small island developing states (SIDS). The two largest global finance mechanisms, the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund, failed to reach the most fragile nations. 

Most disappointingly, however, was the failure of wealthy nations to meet their promise. of providing $100 billion a year to less wealthy countries by 2020 to help them achieve their climate goals. Instead, $83.3 billion in climate financing ended up being allocated by the set deadline, a far cry from the trillions of dollars reportedly necessary to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming. The failure of the $100 billion pledge came from the ambiguous nature of the agreement as negotiators failed to establish how to measure country pledges and no formal deal was made on individual country payments. As a result, nations like the United States, Canada and Australia fell short of what they should have contributed. 

Beyond establishing a fund, delegates have also agreed on having a “transitional committee” which will further operationalize the new funding agreement and establish precise international procedures in raising and distributing that funding. This will hopefully address problems posed by previous financial pledges.  

The fund sets the grounds for a potential reversal of the negative financial slope and while eyes are on all developed nations to demonstrate their commitments, Australia is of particular interest. Ending nine years of conservative rule in May, Anthony Albanese was sworn in as Prime Minister of Australia with ambitious climate goals meant to improve relations with Pacific Island nations that were soured by the inaction of previous leadership. The new parliament’s dedications to climate justice were demonstrated at the Pacific Way Conference in French Polynesia. Foreign Minister Penny Wong stated Australia will allocate some $565 million to the Pacific region to address the “existential threat” of climate change in an effort to regain the trust of the Pacific nations, trust that has diminished over the years. 

The loss and damage fund has opened the floor for the new Australian parliament to fully step up to the task of aiding Pacific Island nations. The success of this fund heavily depends on developed countries’ commitment in making sure the funds get properly allocated to vulnerable countries. In Australia’s case, it is vital that the nation takes on a leading position in the upcoming transitional committee meeting set to occur in March of 2023. At the meeting, Australia, along with other developing countries, must ensure that the eligibility requirements for aid consideration are based on country vulnerability as opposed to income based indicators. The 11 smaller Pacific island countries, including Nauru, Samoa, and the Solomon Islands just to name a few, are all classified as middle-income economies with the exception of the Cook Islands. This has barred them from accessing concessionary finance based on GDP despite being some of the most at risk nations of climate change. In order to adequately finance loss and damage in the pacific islands, Australia must push for the implementation of something like the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index regarding eligibility considerations. This Index will allow donors and financial institutions to address the needs of the pacific nations more effectively as well as allow more countries access to climate finance. 

In establishing the allocations of funds leading up to the first meeting of the transitional committee, Australia must maintain close communication with regional organizations like the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) to ensure the funds reach projects dealing with climate repercussions not addressed by mitigation and adaptation efforts.  

Not only must Australia commit to providing the necessary climate funds, it must also lead by example and make more substantial efforts towards cutting carbon emissions, something it has been criticized heavily for not doing. The Albanese government must take steps to phase out fossil fuel subsidies that have outrageously hit $11.6 billion in 2021-22, a $1.3 billion increase from the previous year. It is necessary that the Albanese government listen to nations like Tuvalu and Vanuatu in their calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and mobilize fossil fuel subsidies towards climate finance so as to regain the trust of the Pacific Island nations. 

In order to corroborate its bid to co-host the 2026 climate conference — COP31 — with Pacific Island Nations, Australia must take this opportunity and fully display its commitments to tackling this climate emergency and shift its stance from a climate laggard to a climate leader. 

The post Climate Finance and the Responsibility of Developed Nations appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This year in particular, the conference was promoted as being heavily centered around implementation and progress coming off of the last conference in Glasgow. However, many are critical of this perception, arguing that world leaders still aren’t doing enough to reach these ambitious climate goals. So to break down this confusion and conflict further, here are some of the biggest takeaways from the conference:

1. Loss and Damage, and the Different Roles of Developed and Developing Nations

The most prominent topic of discussion at the conference was the idea of loss and damage. This concept deals with how developing countries are disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis despite contributing the lowest amount of emissions and waste, while developed countries face minimal consequences yet pollute the most. To rectify this, many countries have proposed reparations of sorts to have developed countries pay compensation for these losses and damage.  

Gabon’s environmental minister was quoted before COP27 saying, “Over and over again, developed nations have committed and not delivered. They’ve committed to reduce emissions and they’re not delivering sufficiently. They’ve committed to funding and that funding doesn’t ever seem to materialize. We didn’t create the problem and so you would expect a more sincere engagement from developed nations and you would expect them to respect their word and their engagements.” This sentiment succinctly summarizes the attitude of many of the developing nations at COP27 who feel a sense of mistrust and betrayal from developed nations.

This topic was so contentious that discussions of funding for nations who have faced environmental disasters pushed the conference past its deadline and left deal-making in a rocky position. The EU set forth the main proposal for this issue, but tied it to another contentious point in the conference: cutting emissions. 

The EU’s proposal is to tie in aggressively slashing emissions with creating a pool of money for relief for poorer countries. To underscore the need for such a two pronged policy, Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, said, “no money in the world could pay for the damages and losses of the future”.

Before the EU’s proposal, the main options for the loss and damage issue were to establish a new fund this year or push off all discussion of a fund until next year. While establishing a fund this year without tying in accountability and emission reduction would likely fall short of delivering true climate justice, developing nations urged the conference to come to a decision about establishing a fund this year; they feel as though waiting until next year would be too little, too late as the frequency and severity of environmental disasters is only increasing. While the EU has led the charge for developed nations on promoting this emission reduction bound fund pool, the U.S. has remained largely silent stalling deal-making further. 

Ultimately, after all-night negotiations and contentious debate, a deal was finally reached marking a monumental and historic step towards greater climate equity and reparations. While many, like the EU, argue the deal doesn’t go far enough, necessary consensus was reached to establish a global loss and damages fund. 

With vague language on limiting fossil fuel use and keeping to the 1.5℃ warming, the difficult work is only just beginning. The bulk of the logistics and financials of the fund yet to be determined. Nevertheless, this deal marks a big step towards climate justice for the most vulnerable nations. However, in order to reach true equity, post-conference accountability of developed nations and more unified, substantive progress towards reducing emissions will be critical.

2. Greenwashing: Preventing it or Exhibiting it at COP27?

Another topic which was on full display at the conference was the idea of greenwashing. Greenwashing is the phenomenon of countries or companies making wide-sweeping claims about their sustainability without actually delivering true, tangible climate focused action. 

Countries at the conference came down hard on companies who are attempting to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by a specified date. This is an example of greenwashing because companies can continue to pollute at the same levels while increasing their carbon offsets by planting trees or investing in carbon removal technologies. 

Despite this harsh criticism, outsiders and climate activists are accusing COP27 as a whole of being an example of greenwashing. Because this conference was supposed to be centered around implementation but has largely fallen short with stalled deal-making and lackluster commitments to the goals set out by the Paris Agreement by the largest polluters, many are viewing the conference as yet another example of greenwashing and performative activism.

Greta Thunberg, one of the youngest but most prominent leaders of the environmental movement, stated she would not attend COP27 arguing that, “The COPs are mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing”. 

Further, the conference drew a lot of criticism from environmentalists for having Coca-Cola as a sponsor of the event since they are one of the largest producers of plastic worldwide. Coca-Cola is one of the very companies that engages in the greenwashing strategy previously outlined of pledging to reach net zero without cutting ties with fossil fuels. This commitment to denouncing these companies and their misleading tactics but simultaneously allowing them to sponsor the event adds to this mixed messaging.

Coca-Cola wasn’t the only fossil fuel linked group to have a presence at COP27. In fact, over 636 COP27 attendees have direct links to the fossil fuel industry. This is a 25% increase in fossil fuel representatives from last year’s conference, and these 636 fossil fuel representatives outnumber the total number of combined representatives from the 10 most climate impacted nations.

It is clear that change is needed dramatically and quickly in order to adequately address the climate crisis. These issues and whether or not this change can come from a COP27-style conference is likely to be one of the major talking points that the world must grapple with after the conclusion of this conference. 

3. Unreported and Misreported Emissions

An environmental NGO called Climate TRACE, which tracks emissions, reported that oil and gas companies could be underreporting their emissions. Through analysis of 72,612 CO2 sources, Climate TRACE found that unreported, actual emissions could be three times higher than reported levels. 

Oil and gas fields consistently ranked highest in terms of largest polluters, and the United States’ Permian Basin — an oil and gas field — was reported to be the largest source of CO2 emissions worldwide. 

This misleading reporting and lack of data further compounds the inability of individuals and grassroots groups to adequately address the climate crisis. So much of the real data has been obscured by major corporations for decades. Demands for both more transparency from corporations but also more independent research and oversight are likely to be a focal point for discussions after the conference. 

4. Extreme Weather and “Adapting” to Climate Change

COP27 was held against the backdrop of some of the worst natural disasters and extreme weather events of recent memory. From extreme flooding in Pakistan to uncharacteristic drought in Europe, the world has faced extreme challenges from the consequences of climate change over the past year. 

The traditional climate change response has been one of mitigation. Mitigation in climate change policy and advocacy is action taken to prevent further environmental damage or future disasters. Mitigation is also typically a more national and international response to climate change.

However, as these climate disasters worsen and occur with more frequency, local and state governments are left with the difficult and costly task of dealing with them at the present. To face this reality, COP27 featured a greater discussion around adaptation rather than mitigation. Adaptation is the approach of adjusting to and preparing for these disasters because they are more or less inevitable. Essentially, adaptation is more of a harm reduction and risk minimization approach.

While adaptation certainly deserves discussion and can play a critical role in the global response to climate change, it undoubtedly has its limitations. The limitations of adaptation were another key talking point at the conference with scientists warning that humans cannot adapt to all effects of climate change and that we must put mitigation at the forefront with adaptation as a supplement. 

These same scientists urged nations to continue the discussion of loss and damage, because this compensation will be necessary since the world cannot adapt infinitely. Clearly, this underscores the importance of loss and damage as a critical theme of the conference, but adaptation is a reality that also must be addressed.

Nonetheless, progress was made on the Global Goal on Adaptation, with added funds and an end goal of the first Global Stockade at COP28. These measures will add resiliency to the most vulnerable nations. The next step is further funding for adaptation combined with renewed, substantial progress towards mitigation policies as vital components of an equitable and sustainable global response to climate change.

5. The Effects of the War in Ukraine

Along with the increased extreme natural disasters, COP27 discussions were also impacted by the war in Ukraine. Since Russia is such a large producer of oil and gas, the war in Ukraine inevitably drove up oil and gas prices. One idea that was promoted by Gaston Browne, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, was to tax global corporations who are profiting from this increase in price resulting from the war. 

However, this proposal was not universally well received with German chancellor Olaf Scholz arguing that COP27 is not the forum for tax discussion but rather climate change mitigation strategies. Scholz has truly felt this increased pressure on his country’s energy supply as earlier this year he ordered Germany’s three remaining nuclear power plants to keep running to offset Germany’s loss of energy from Russia. 

Similarly, other countries like China have returned to relying on coal fired power plants which are the largest greenhouse gas polluters in response to the increase in price and decrease of supply from Russia. Coming out of this conference, global leaders are going to have to grapple with building emergency response plans and renewable energy grids for their countries; they must be substantial enough to avoid resorting back toward fossil fuels in this way when emergency and disaster strikes. To truly switch to a renewably powered world, being sustainable under the optimal conditions is not enough. The renewable energy grid must be able to support fluctuations in demand for other energy sources as well.

The post The Biggest Takeaways from COP27 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Heading into COP27, the European Union was supposed to bring updated plans for carbon reduction since last year’s COP26. Now, in the middle of the energy crisis, some European countries are being forced to renege on past promises or change direction. 

For example, Germany, intended to close the last of its coal-fired power plants by the end of 2022 in order to keep on track for its 2030 coal phase-out goal. However, as Germany used to receive 55% of its natural gas from Russia, the war left it with a significant gap to fill. So, Germany has postponed the closure of or reactivated at least 20 of coal power plants to support their energy demands. Italy, Hungary, Greece and the Netherlands all also announced plans to postpone the closure of some power plants or re-open others. A proposed compromise for this decision suggests investing the earnings of these power plants toward constructing more sustainable energy sources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, but there are concerns that the German government isn’t doing enough to ensure this actually happens. Environmentalists in Germany reportedly understand the necessity of ensuring that there’s enough energy for the winter but assert that the extra carbon burned must be somehow offset elsewhere in the country.

Poland also received a significant amount of natural gas, about 45% of its supply, from Russia before the war and was similarly cut off following Russia’s attack. As a result, Poland announced plans to slow their coal phase-out but maintained that the phase-out would be complete at the originally scheduled time of 2049. They said that in this time of crisis, they don’t want to be forced to rely on expensive imported coal and would rather increase their domestic production. Poland is the only EU country that uses coal as its primary source of electricity, so before it can convert to other sources, it will require a supply of coal from somewhere, whether that be from its mines or from imports. 

Eventually, Poland hopes to diversify their energy sources. The country recently announced its cooperation with U.S. and South Korean companies to construct nuclear power plants. However, Poland stated that no coal mines would close until the first of these plants opened, which won’t be until 2033 at the earliest.

Alternatively, Romania has been pushing to increase its solar and wind energy generation to gain independence from Russian energy sources. A new solar project is set to be the biggest solar photovoltaic plant in Europe, with 1.6 million new solar panels supplying power to more than 370,000 households. The plant, which will also include energy storage capabilities, should be online by 2025. The same company, Rezolv Energy, is also looking to build a wind farm. If Romania generates enough renewable energy, it could even share its supply with other European countries. This would be a major feat, but Romania, in particular, is well poised to fulfill it as the nation has a high solar energy potential with 210 sunny days out of the year.

The effects of the energy crisis are not contained to Europe. With big European economies suddenly searching for energy, prices have soared globally at the expense of developing countries. Their supply of natural gas has drastically decreased, as it is now exported to Europe. Natural gas suppliers are disregarding their previous contracts in favor of the prices offered by European countries, prices that allow them to pay the penalties for breaking their contracts and still make a profit. Thus, Europe’s energy crisis has become an energy crisis for developing countries with smaller economies, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Thailand. 

Accordingly, Russia has approached Pakistan, India and other countries that have faced an energy deficiency and offered their supply of natural gas. Leaders are trapped in a similar situation to Europe’s: boycotting Russia and supporting the environment or meeting the immediate energy needs of their citizens? 

To avoid pushing developing nations into Russia’s arms, European countries need to work together with gas suppliers and economically smaller countries to establish a more fair distribution of wealth and supplies. They could do so by supplying funds for developing countries to funnel towards procuring other energy sources or put funding towards becoming competitive in the market for natural gas. Alternatively, regulations could also be put in place to control the price of natural gas or limit the profit made by suppliers in order to make the supplies more accessible to smaller economies and force the suppliers to honor their long-term contracts. There is no easy solution, as there is a severe global shortage of supply, but there are measures that can be put in place to minimize the damage to people and the environment. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had many far-reaching and devastating consequences, including Russia’s manipulation of its energy sources as a weapon, resulting in an energy crisis worldwide. This shortage may cause potential loss of life or livelihood in the coming winter and has also impacted the climate and climate goals heading into COP27. The hope is that despite these setbacks, European countries at COP27 will outline specific measures to ensure they still ultimately adhere to their initial climate goals. The conference will also ideally serve as an opportunity for negotiation of either financial compensation for developing countries or market legislation to ensure emerging nations aren’t forced to rely on Russian gas in order to survive the winter.

The post How the European Energy Crisis is Impacting Climate Goals appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

China and the United States are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, with China emitting 30% of global emissions — which is approximately triple the gross emissions of the U.S. 

The United States has attempted to make changes towards reducing its climate impact.  For example, electric vehicles and solar panels have hit U.S. markets in a major way. However, due to domestic political instability, the United States’ dedication to reducing carbon emissions is unclear to foreign and domestic actors. Similar concerns exist about China’s commitment to emissions reductions. Despite China ending the financing of coal-fired power plants abroad, the country has plans to construct new coal power plants domestically.

While the two countries have made key strides toward reducing their carbon footprint, there are still significant steps that must be taken for long-term sustainability. Without these steps, the consequences will be deadly. 

Cooperation between the two highest greenhouse gas emitters is necessary if the global community has a shot at combating climate change and mitigating its effects. Yet, at COP27, these superpowers are refusing to collaborate directly with each other.

According to Scientific American, climate change talks between the United States and China are currently suspended, worrying the global community that without cooperation, the conference may fail to make a real impact. During the Paris Climate Accord in 2016, China and the United States showed good faith and worked together to reach an agreement. However with the recent rising tensions regarding Taiwan, the economic competition between the two countries, and the fight for wider global dominance,, it comes to no surprise that the two countries will not be working on bilateral agreements this November.

“Climate change diplomacy between China and the United States cannot be separated from broader political tensions between the two sides, and Washington must take responsibility,” China’s foreign ministry said.

This statement comes 3 months after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan, which the Chinese described as a “serious breach of Chinese sovereignty.” As a result of these actions, China felt that it had no options but to suspend any talks regarding a bilateral agreement. John Kerry, White House climate envoy, is concerned that without China, there is no solution to the issue of climate change.

With cooperation on climate agendas seeming far fetched between the two nations, President Biden plans on asserting the United States as the international leader at COP27. Although many in the international community believe that the United States is a state rampant with climate change denial, with Chinese President Xi not even present at COP27, Biden believes he can use this absence as an advantage in its ability to establish the United States as the key player in combating climate change.

Despite little to no chance of a bilateral agreement between China and the United States coming out of COP27, the international community can only hope that a comprehensive and progressive multilateral agreement comes along that can give us a chance at saving our world. However, with it being significantly more difficult to create multilateral agreements in comparison to bilateral agreements, our ability to fight climate change is at great risk. We must put our differences aside, and fight the greater fight: climate change. 

The post U.S.-China Relations and Tensions at COP 27 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This is a clear and present failure of leadership. Sunak and King Charles’ refusal to attend COP27 perfectly demonstrates how little climate change is valued in developed countries’ policy and political affairs. Any involvement, including of the British monarchy through King Charles, would have been a crucial demonstration of leadership and value. Furthermore, Charles is well-known for his love of the environment; it’s unfortunate that he will not step up when the world needs him most. 

As temperatures rise and world leaders fail to develop lasting solutions to these urgent and complex climate issues, we need to shine a light on the consequences of their actions. 

The primary failure is that many Western leaders treat climate change like a secondary matter. It’s not. 2021 was the sixth-warmest year on record. More than 1 million species are at risk of extinction by climate change. Higher temperatures worsen air quality, negatively affect crop production, increase the spread of infectious diseases and threaten freshwater deposits. Additionally, wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters only intensify as global temperatures become more irregular. Climate change also significantly harms coastal communities and people in less-developed countries disproportionately because of their geographic locations and high dependence on natural resources, respectively. Climate change should be everyone’s number one priority.

The United Kingdom was still supposed to be represented by other senior officials at the Conference of Parties. However, the fact that the prime minister and the monarchy proposed not attending is a slap in the face to all officials who do care. And the international community took notice.

After Sunak’s announcement, Greta Thunberg, a famed environmentalist, called out Sunak’s decision to skip the conference and said  “the fact that one of the most powerful people in the world doesn’t have time for this, it’s very symbolic and says that they may have other priorities … which of course can be understandable, but as long as we use these excuses we won’t get anywhere.” 

Last year, Sunak was one of the many Cabinet members at COP26. This year, his original statement not to attend and his choice to restrict King Charles is one that will be remembered in history. 

After facing major backlash, Sunak reversed his decision and is now attending COP27, but the fact that he initially announced not attending the conference highlights his government’s misguided climate priorities. Even during one of the COP meetings, Sunak left after being rushed away by aides. In order to accomplish any substantive progress, COP negotiations need voluntary and active participation from every prominent world leader, including Sunak. Otherwise, the Conference of Parties is pointless.

Rishi Sunak, you can’t avoid climate change. You can’t run away from the major global warming crisis. Regardless of what you may personally believe, climate change should be every country’s number one priority. If you refuse to attend the Conference of Parties, and neglect discussing global warming and your country’s impact on climate change as a major world power, your government represents the biggest threat to a sustainable and secure future. 

Global warming affects our economies, people, agriculture, businesses and weather, among almost every other thing that allows every person on this earth to survive. Right now, more than ever, we need our world leaders to show up and participate in the matter that we care about. Right now, we need climate action.

The post You Can’t Ignore Climate Change, Rishi Sunak appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As the region prepares for the upcoming COP27 conference in Egypt this November, they have a long list of initiatives and demands, including investments in sustainable development, disaster prevention and relief and transition to clean energy. Many regional leaders have grown frustrated with previous international climate deliberations and have resolved to take a more aggressive stance on climate negotiations, one that mirrors their concerns about environmental collapse.

“The time to see ourselves as climate victims is over. Although we are, the time to take the helm of the ship has begun,” said Max Puig, executive vice president of the country’s National Council for Climate Change and Clean Development Mechanism (CNCCMDL). Puig’s was one of many rallying cries at this year’s Latin American and Caribbean Climate Week (LACCW), held in July in Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic. Climate Week hosted approximately 1,700 government representatives, international organizations, private sector stakeholders and civil society experts. The week-long summit featured more than 160 sessions regarding “climate risks and the transition to carbon neutrality economies, among other climate issues.”

LACCW allowed regional leaders to discuss their national climate policies and develop strategies for the upcoming COP27 negotiations. Cities in Chile, Colombia and across Latin America have begun transitioning from public buses to electric vehicles. The agricultural sector has begun adopting regenerative agricultural practices to combat soil degradation, depletion and drought, a problem particularly afflicting Chilean farms that have suffered from a drought for more than a decade. The region is also developing plans for offshore wind farms and solar panels to create the infrastructure of sustainable energy production required to reduce carbon emissions.

Indeed, many Latin American countries have already adopted more aggressive climate policies within their national borders, but they lack the resources to undertake the large scale of climate crises. 

Like many developing countries, the primary roadblock to sustainable energy transition is insufficient financial resources. Achieving their carbon reduction goals set in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement would require redirecting as much as 19%, or $1.3 trillion USD, of public and private spending in Latin America toward climate solutions, a figure that remains both politically and economically infeasible in developing countries. “Yes, we need to incentivise the transition to low-emission, highly resilient development, but this should not be done at the expense of existing businesses or national development,” said Ovais Sarmad, the UN Climate Change deputy executive secretary. 

Consequently, Latin America and the Caribbean hope to secure greater adaptation and mitigation investment from developed countries, especially for constructing sustainable energy infrastructure, transitioning away from fossil fuel transportation and modernizing agricultural systems to be more energy efficient and environmentally conservative. The agricultural sector, in particular, presents multiple opportunities for carbon reduction with developed countries’ investments and technological assistance. 

Implementing the necessary changes will require three distinct channels of negotiation at the upcoming COP27: “capacity building, technology transfer” and, most importantly, funding.

“Funding must be increased. Developed countries, which pledged to provide USD 100 billion a year in assistance starting in 2020, must fulfill their promise, as was highlighted at COP26 in Glasgow,” said Walter Oyhantçabal, an expert on international climate negotiations. Delegates from Mexico, Chile and Colombia are expected to continue leading the charge in COP27 deliberations, pressuring developed countries to increase their investments and follow through on their promises.

“It must be clear to our peoples and to the world that we are serious and that, even in the most difficult circumstances, we are not going to stop. We will overcome the difficulties. This is the message that Latin America and the Caribbean are taking to COP27 in Egypt,” said Puig in conclusion. 

As both a vulnerable region and a site of immense potential in the battle against climate change, Latin America will play a critical role in negotiations at this year’s COP27 summit.

The post Financing Energy Transition: Latin America and the Caribbean at COP 27 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Torres Strait Islands are located between northwestern continental Australia and Papua New Guinea. According to the Committee, these Islands are inhabited by some of the “most vulnerable populations” to climate change and have already felt the brunt of climate-change damage. 

The island has been battered by rising sea levels, flooding, high temperatures, ocean acidification, the loss of shoreline from coastal erosion, coral bleaching and the extinction of species that hold cultural importance to native communities. 

The initial complaint against Australia was filed three years ago by eight Torres Strait Islanders and their children. They claimed that the changes in weather patterns caused by climate change had direct, harmful consequences on their livelihood, culture and traditional way of life. The islanders’ case claimed that the Australian government had failed to take mitigation and adaptation measures against climate change’s impacts and had therefore failed to protect their human rights. 

One particularly damaging consequence, both environmentally and culturally, is Australia’s increasingly intense storm surges, which result from rising sea levels and increase coastal flood risks. Climate change can worsen storm surges by intensifying their size with stronger winds that push waves further onshore. Islanders say these storm surges have destroyed family graves, scattering human remains. For Islanders’ culture, visiting graves is a vital aspect of their values, and they believe that certain rites of passage can only occur on their ancestral lands.

Consequently, Australia began to take some measures to protect the Torres Strait Islanders, including monitoring heat and tide levels and beginning to construct a sea wall. Despite these actions, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that the Australian government did violate islanders’ rights by failing to implement adaptive mitigation to ensure the island’s ability to maintain its traditional way of life and pass on its culture to future generations. 

This decision in September ruled that Australia violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a UN doctrine created to protect international human rights violations. In 1991, alongside 173 other countries, Australia ratified the Human Rights Committee’s authority to oversee the implementation of the ICCPR. The Committee found that Australia’s failure to protect Indigenous islanders against adverse climate change impacts violated their rights to enjoy culture free from arbitrary interference with their private life, family and home. 

The Committee valued the Islanders’ spiritual connection with the traditional lands and recognized that indigenous culture relied on the health of the surrounding ecosystem.

For example, the changes in climate, which increased rainfall and storms, have degraded the land and trees, severely reducing the amount of food available from traditional fishing and farming. On Masig Island, an island in the Torres Strait Region, rising sea levels allowed saltwater to seep into the soil, infecting coconut trees and killing off the fruit. Coconut fruit and water are both parts of the Islanders’ traditional diet. 

The Indigenous islanders requested that the State provide full reparation for the climate-induced inflictions, which would include substantial compensation and measures of protection from future violations. The Committee judged that Australia owed the Torres Strait Islanders adequate compensation for the climate-related harm. Australia was also told to consult with the impacted communities and learn what actions would ensure that the inhabitants would be safe on their lands. From the ruling date, Sept. 23, Australia has 180 days to report to the UN Committee on how they plan to carry out future mitigating action. 

Although the committee ruled that the Torres Strait Islanders deserved some compensation, the claim that the Islanders’ right to life with dignity was violated under the ICCPR was rejected. The claim argued that the land would become uninhabitable within 10 to 15 years, but since the Australian government has begun taking adaptive actions — like building a 1,022-meter-long wave return wall — the UN believes that intervention will counter the threat to the Islanders’ right to life with dignity.  

This case is a pivotal point in the global fight against climate change. It is the first time a judicial body has ruled that a government is financially responsible for climate harm inflicted on human rights. The decision expands a growing body of law that deems climate change a human rights emergency. 

The decision now holds governments accountable for protecting their citizens from foreseeable consequences of climate change, according to John Knox, a professor of international law at Wake Forest University and an independent expert on human rights and the environment for the UN “[The UN ruling] shows how human rights can be leveraged to force faster and more effective climate action,” said Knox. 

As the 27th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC (COP27) begins, the world will be watching as global leaders meet to implement effective ways to tackle the international climate crisis. The ruling in Australia will hold significant precedent for some of the main goals of COP27. One of the most critical topics at the conference will be “loss and damages”, defined as the negative impacts of climate change that are creating global injustices. This theme will create an opportunity for world leaders to take proactive steps in protecting vulnerable populations. 

Moving forward, it is expected that the decision in favor of the Torres Strait Islanders will support the claims of similar complaints to the Committee, catalyzing the efforts against climate change and placing the question of state accountability before the International Court of Justice. 

The post The UN Ruled that Climate Action is Needed to Protect Human Rights appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As the conference host, Egypt has positioned itself as a leader in climate initiatives in Africa. Egypt offers a unique perspective as a host, as Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi affirmed that Egypt will use its role as a host to advocate for the interests of Africa and other developing nations. This includes securing funds for developing countries, which are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change, despite contributing relatively little to climate change. 

Climate action in Egypt has included both mitigation and adaptation efforts, including increasing its wind energy capacity fivefold and building desalination plants and flood-prevention infrastructure to counteract increasing water stress. Nonetheless, the motive behind Egypt’s action has received scrutiny. Greenpeace has been accused by human rights defenders of “greenwashing” the Egyptian government’s image, in a diversionary tactic to distract from Egypt’s poor human rights record. Not only does Egypt, under the government of Egyptian president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, hold over 60,000 political prisoners, but the government has reportedly silenced independent environmental activists. 

In July 2022, a coalition of activists and environmentalists wrote an open letter questioning the ability of Egypt to successfully host COP27 because of Egypt’s subpar human rights record. The letter emphasized that without full human rights to freedom of assembly, association, and expression, rights which are currently being repressed in Egypt, COP27 would not be able to ensure that conference participants could speak and assemble freely. John Sauven, former executive director of Greenpeace UK, was among the signatories of the letter. However, Greenpeace UK declined to sign. Grassroots activists have exclaimed disappointment in Greenpeace’s reluctance to support the letter, as Egyptian human rights defender Sanaa Seif points out that “a lot of us are worried about putting African and Egyptian activists in danger, [and]the big Western organizations have much more room and leverage to speak out and make human rights a priority at COP.”

Further concerns regarding Egypt’s role in the conference are that Egypt’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels and natural gasses which accounted for about 90% of its power generation capacity in 2019, might undermine its leadership of the conference. Egypt is still seeking to increase the country’s natural gas and oil production, arguing that lower-income countries should be able to depend on and develop using fossil fuels until they can afford a shift to clean energy sources. 

The COP27 president Sameh Shoukry previously called gas a “transitional source of energy”, which was echoed by the European Commission in February. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that to even have a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, “there should be no new gas fields.” Hints of Egypt’s agenda are clear on the COP27 website, in language discussing a “shift towards a low-carbon economy” rather than a zero-carbon economy. 

Egypt has already committed to a new gas delivery deal with Israel and the European Union, and experts claim Egypt will only consider setting a net-zero target if it gets more financial assistance. The position, which is shared by other African exporters, indicates that climate finance will take priority in the COP27 agenda. 

In fact, Ambassador Mohamed Nasr, the country’s chief climate negotiator, has affirmed his commitment to accountability in climate finance and equitable distribution of aid, citing that in 2009, developed countries promised to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 — yet still have fallen short. Developing nations are also advocating for payments for “loss and damage,” for current pressing impacts. This possibility was excluded from the Bonn climate talks in June, due to backlash from wealthier nations fearing an endless compensation timeline. The EU has agreed, however, that discussions of such payments should take place at COP27. 

Despite rising geopolitical tensions, energy and food shortages, the continued impacts of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, Ambassador Nasr remains hopeful that COP27 will create an opportunity to recognize “mutual interest in tackling this climate crisis together” and set “multilateral action back on track.”

The post The Geopolitics of COP27 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The apprehension toward COP27 comes after countries failed to meet the $100 billion goal set at COP26 and insufficiently supported countries with lacking infrastructure, which was a prominent critique in the encyclical (papal letter) he published in 2016. Encyclicals are designed to highlight particular issues and help followers understand the teachings of the Church. Moreover, they are meant to be taken seriously and can become “infallible” statements when the pope chooses to go through the process of penning one. 

As such, Pope Francis is using his privileged position and authority as the head of the Catholic Church to encourage Christians to take initiative to help the environment. His public statements about COP27 intend to demonstrate his commitment to the environment and encourage wealthy countries to follow through on their promises. 

Furthermore, the pope has voiced concerns about greenwashing sustainable development and the misuse of the term “green” development. Green development is when a corporation focuses on sustainable development, and greenwashing occurs when corporations put more effort and money into marketing their green development than on their actual environmental impact. He feels that wealthy countries and corporations are making — and publicizing — insufficient changes as a way to greenwash their negative effects on the environment. This is also part of the reason he has been reluctant to show support for global summits, claiming countries have “too many special interests” with “superficial rhetoric.”

Moreover, he discusses the direct impact of corporations and wealthy countries on climate change, specifically by making minimal efforts to mitigate the crisis while being the biggest polluters in the last two centuries and failing to support economically poor countries. Wealthy nations can “conceal” the symptoms while the struggling nations cannot escape the effects of climate change, but migrants from these countries are not classified as refugees despite fleeing from the environmental destruction. 

Pope Francis has also directly called out mining, oil, real estate and other industries as major polluters. Other Catholic theologians have joined him in voicing their concerns for the environmental cost of the summit and the sponsorship of one of the biggest plastic producers, after Francis became vocal in his critique of “throwaway culture.” Coca-Cola has been accused by other climate activists for greenwashing by spending more money on publicizing positive initiatives than on programs to clean up their waste.

The pope has also called out the environmental cost of the transportation to COP27 and past environmental summits. Nearly 200 countries will travel to Egypt to attend the conference, and Pope Francis expressed concern about the economic cost of the airfare. While acknowledging the necessity of air travel, he is also concerned about the detrimental environmental costs. 

Furthermore, the papal letter also focused on the exploitation of the common good as both a cause and consequence of climate change, and how this has caused growing injustices and human rights issues in economically poor countries. Egypt, the host country for COP27, is known for its authoritarian government and numerous human rights violations. The pope traveled to Egypt in 2017 to give a speech on religious violence, specifically against the increase in terrorist attacks against Christians and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s role in the authoritarian government. 

Egypt’s position as the host of COP27 has incentivized it to focus on addressing the human rights violations in the country, but the Catholic Church remains skeptical of the conditions fostered by its domestic inequalities, poverty and conflict. 

Pope Francis’ and the Church’s focus on human rights violations emphasizes that skepticism towards COP27 is warranted because the negotiations may constitute another example of greenwashing.

Climate change has been a primary focus of the Catholic Church since Pope Saint John Paul II, but Pope Francis has made an exceptional effort as pope to combat climate change, noting that it is a human responsibility to take care of the planet. The encyclical he released focused on climate change in a way that no pope has done before and has been incorporated into official Catholic social teachings which encourages the message to be disseminated throughout the Church.

Catholic voices will be present at COP27, with the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the Catholic Sisters planning to send delegations. Catholic perspectives at the summit may encourage countries to make attainable goals and policies that positively influence all countries, not just the wealthy ones. 

While Francis could not attend COP26 due to health concerns and it is remains unclear whether he will be attending this year, he has called for countries to “heed his concerns” and is urging world leaders to take COP27 seriously so as not have another instance of failed promises, “greenwashing” and insufficient policies of sustainable development. 

The pope hopes that Catholic voices at COP27 will encourage countries to create “effective implementation” for the Paris Agreement and to move forward with sustainable development and policy. The countries attending COP27 have an opportunity to make positive change but must focus on making lasting change and true green development that will benefit all nations. 

The post Pope Francis’s Statement on COP27 and Climate Change appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.