Deal! Or No Deal?

December 13, 2023

An 11th-hour deal has been struck at the CoP28 climate talks — but what kind of deal? The devil’s in the details, as always.

It’s being labelled “the UAE consensus,” but those are not the kind of words to stir hope and joy in the climate science community.

On the face of it, the 11th hour — literally, midnight Pacific Time — agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels sounds like, if not the end result exactly, a step in the right direction.

What the EU has labelled “the beginning of the end of fossil fuels” is also being singled out by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) as an “improvement,” but with a “litany of loopholes.”

Climate justice campaigners are, by and large, disappointed with the wording, which they say can — and probably will — stand in the way of implementation.

Was it ever thus.

The reaction from small island countries like Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Kiribati is telling because they are the nation states most vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis in the immediate term, as opposed to “somewhere in the future,” say, 2050, when — in theory — the world will have cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to limit global heating to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

That was already a tall order as the science tells us that the world is already at 1.7°C ahead of pre-industrial levels. Rapid ice melt in the polar regions and glaciers in more temperate climes might not seem evident right now in London, New York and Washington D.C., but it is an existential issue in Tonga, Micronesia and the Maldives, among 33 other member states.

The deal encourages the world’s nations to embark on a de facto phasing out of fossil fuels, but developing countries still need billions of dollars to help them transition away from coal, oil and gas. The G7 nations, fast-growing economies like those in China and India, and the wealthy oil sheikhdoms of the Arabian Gulf are not compelled, let alone required, to move as quickly as the climate science urges. The US has pledged just $20 million in new finance to help emerging nations, and even that amount — paltry considering the US is also the world’s most active producer of oil and gas — and even that is likely to be rolled back when political conservatives regain power in the US White House and Congress, as they are likely to do next November, with Canada to follow in 2025.

China has already vowed to expand coal production, and India will face no penalty for following suit. Russia, which worked hard behind the scenes to forestall any kind of deal, including this one, will face little opposition next year, when the UN’s climate conference will be held in Azerbaijan, an oil producer and more or less a client state of the oil and gas-producing Putinocracy.

There is a silver lining to all this, if silver is the right word exactly. Timing, as always, is a factor. Perhaps shamed by the optics of handing the world’s biggest, most important climate conference to Azerbaijan in 2024, the following year’s conference will be held in Brazil. And not just Brazil, but in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, the symbol of nature’s last stand against global heating.

Let’s hope it’s still there.

”Down” or “Out”

December 08, 2023

Wording is a key battleground at the CoP28 climate conference in Dubai, with stakeholders digging in over whether fossil fuels be dialed down or phased out completely. It was ever thus.

Word soup is the order of the day midway through the climate-change summit in the UAE, as stakeholders appear divided between those who want to limit fossil-fuel cuts to “unabated” oil and gas and those who want to include all fossil fuels in any agreement, whether they’re abated, unabated or both.

Other disputes are developing over whether to tie the growth of renewable energy to any proposed deal, digging in over whether any changes in policy be implemented “gradually” or “rapidly” over a specified period of time, be it “this decade,” “next decade,” “mid-century” (2050) or “by the end of the century.” Or not at all. “It won’t affect us personally or directly — let someone else deal with it.”

“Unabated” refers to the burning of fossil fuels where carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions are released directly into the atmosphere, which exacerbates global heating, which most delegates — though not all — now admit is a genuine crisis.

“Abated,” on the other hand, means — well, no one appears quite sure what it means. Loosely defined, “abated” refers to the burning of coal, oil and gas coupled with the capture and storage, permanent or semi-permanent, of the resulting greenhouse gases. “Carbon capture,” in other words.

Bottom line: There is no agreed-on definition of what “abated” really means. It’s just something to argue about. And if climate conferences have proved one thing in recent times, it’s that people like to argue.

It doesn’t matter how much carbon dioxide is stored, the optimists say, just so long as some is. Regardless of whether countries agree to “phase down” or “phase out” fossil fuels, the production and use of fossil fuels will “drop dramatically.”

It’s already too late, climate realists say: This is no time for semantics.

Aren’t you glad you asked?

Some facts are unassailable — except, of course, to those who choose to dispute them.

Fossil fuels are the single largest contributor to present-day global heating and are responsible for most of the cumulative historical emissions.

Furthermore, continued expansion of oil and gas development will “lock in” future emissions, according to scientists who have testified before the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Their findings represent a “large consensus” of scientific opinion, according to published reports; further development of oil and gas fields — as has been decided by several countries already — is “incompatible” with keeping temperatures below the 1.5°C threshold agreed to at the 2015 Paris summit.

“Large consensus” or no, the experts are divided — if one looks hard enough.

Dr. Alaa Al Khourdajie, a respected climate scientist and research fellow at Imperial College London, has said these disagreements emphasize the need to be “transparent” and “crystal clear” about what abated fossil fuel really means, in the same way a “clear” and “obvious” error by a match official at a Premier League soccer match be overturned by instant video replay (though, in practice, that hasn’t worked as expected).

So far, it’s about as clear as mud.

“There is a lack of clarity about what counts as unabated and what counts as abated,” Dr. Khourdajie told Carbon Brief, a UK-based website that specializes in the science and policy of climate change. “Largely due to the absence of agreed definitions in the underlying literature at the time of (these) negotiations.”

Again, aren’t you glad you asked?

The CoP28 climate conference concludes this weekend.

Where de Money?

December 01, 2023

World leaders at the CoP28 climate summit in Dubai have agreed in principle to a global fund to help struggling countries deal with the effects of climate change. But what does that mean in real terms?

In Start the Revolution Without Me, Bud Yorkin’s 1970 parody of Alexander Dumas’ historical classic The Corsican Brothers, Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland play identical twins who are accidentally switched at birth on the eve of the French Revolution.

One set of twins is born to a family of peasants, the other to aristocrats.

They grow up in different worlds, one hard-scrabble and beset by poverty, the other a world of sophistication and plenty.

Sutherland grows up to become the haughty, sophisticated Pierre DeSisi and the somewhat more intellectually challenged Charles Coupé; Wilder grows up to become the haughty, aristocratic Phillipe DeSisi and the excitable, rough-around-the-edges Claude Coupé.

When the revolution comes to a head — sorry — both sets of twins find themselves mistaken again, but this time as adults. A running gag involves the dastardly Versailles villain Count du Monet, who Claude calls “Count de Money!” as an exasperated Pierre tries to correct his pronunciation with the more cultured — and accurate — “Du Moan-ay, Du Moan-ay.”

One of the criticisms of the annual United Nations CoP climate talks over the years is that they’ve been full of financial promises from Western nations to the developing countries, that part of the world most affected by climate breakdown caused by carbon emissions from the excessive burning of fossil fuels, without actually producing the money.

That looked to change earlier this week at CoP28 when world leaders at the UN climate summit in Dubai approved a disaster fund to help low-lying tropical island states and coastal regions vulnerable to flooding from rapidly rising sea levels.

Conference president Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, whose day job is the UAE’s Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology — he heads the UAE’s national oil company and has control of his country’s vast oil reserves — says world leaders need to “proactively engage” fossil fuel companies as a keystone part of any solution to climate challenges.

This matters because, like it or not, oil companies are where the money is. Al-Jaber described the agreement as a “positive signal of momentum” in his address at Thursday’s opening ceremony, but not everyone is convinced.

The UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, took a more cautious position, noting that there must be a terminal decline to the fossil fuel era if the world is to stop “our own terminal decline.”

In a speech earlier this year at the United Nations Security Council’s first-ever meeting on the threat to international peace and security from rising sea levels, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that sea levels will rise significantly even if global warming is “miraculously” limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the elusive international goal. Guterres warned the Earth is more likely on a path to warming that amounts to “a death sentence” for countries vulnerable to that rise, including many small island nations.

Guterres added that the threat is not just limited to low-lying island states in the tropics: some of the world’s largest cities are also likely to be affected. “mega-cities on every continent … including Cairo, Lagos, Maputo, Bangkok, Dhaka, Jakarta, Mumbai, Shanghai, Copenhagen, London, Los Angeles, New York, Buenos Aires and Santiago.”

More than 70,000 delegates are attending the CoP28 climate talks, among them world leaders of France, Japan, the UK and Brazil, as well as activists, lobbyists and prominent public figures such as Bill Gates and King Charles III.

The leaders of the world’s largest emitters of carbon emissions, the US and China, have elected not to attend, however.

So far, nations at CoP28 have formally approved the implementation of a “loss and damage” fund to compensate “climate-vulnerable” countries — this, after months of hard-fought negotiations over how the fund will work. The UAE sees itself as a bridge between the rich developed nations most responsible for historic emissions and the rest of the world, which has contributed less to global warming but suffers its worst consequences.

While talk of a climate fund is encouraging, island states most likely to be affected in the short term — Tuvalu and Vanuatu, to name just two — risk being completely submerged by rising sea levels water by the end of the century. Tuvalu and Vanuatu, together with the Maldives, Kiribati, the Bahamas, Antigua, Palau, Barbuda and St. Lucia, tona me just a few, can be forgiven for asking, Where de money?

Crisis, What Crisis

November 29, 2023

Where to hold a global conference about the climate crisis? Why, Dubai of course

A petrostate hosting a climate conference: Brilliant!

It sounds like a Monty Python sketch, as dreamed up by Terry Gilliam, newly wakened from a fever dream, and hosted by Spiny Norman, the giant hedgehog.

Almost everything about CoP28, underway in Dubai through Dec.12th, is enough to fry the brain, from the name — “CoP” stands for “Convention of the Parties,” a headline grabber if ever there were one — to the inconvenient truth that the conference’s president, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, also happens to be the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil firm.

Don’t look so doubtful! It’s a coincidence, and coincidence only. What’s the matter with you?

As extinction events go, debating the End of Days in the glass towers of Dubai, a gleaming metropolis on the Persian Gulf where, rightly speaking, there shouldn’t even be a town, let alone one of the shinest cities on the planet, deserves top marks for style, if not substance.

It’s hard to go out on a limb and argue the benefits of keeping carbon emissions within a limit that will hold temperature to within the 1.5°C increase agreed to at the 2015 Paris Agreement if that limb is no longer attached to a living, breathing tree.

Most scientists worth their 250 grams of salt now say we’ll be lucky if we can keep world temperatures within 3.0°C of the ideal. In the same way those same scientists admit their original climate projections, criticized at the time for being overly pessimistic and alarmist, were too conservative.

Never mind Al Gore. Global heating is happening at a faster rate than even the most dire predictions in 2015. That’s especially evident in the polar regions, where ice melt is accelerating at a pace not seen since the last mass extinction. The day may yet come when even 3° seems mild. The question is no longer if, but when.

Against this backdrop, an opinion piece by climate campaigner Vanessa Nakate for Al-Jazeera, posted this past summer, hit any number of sore points, all the more so as Nakate, from Uganda, has become the public face for the climate campaign across the developing world, in the same way Greta Thunberg, a close friend, has raised consciousness across the northern hemisphere.

“There is a big difference between national leaders and global leaders,” Nakate wrote. “The former push national interests on the global stage, often using the rhetoric of global solutions. The latter carry a vision that extends beyond personal interests, election cycles or profit margins to do the best for humanity.”

The world will have to heat a lot more before Thunberg’s native Sweden is affected to the point where it becomes unlivable; Uganda, on the equator, is already on the way there.

Global ice melt may be easiest to spot in the polar regions, but it’s across the equatorial tropics that climate change’s effects will be felt first.

With that as a backdrop, it’s hard not to be skeptical of the idea that the head of a global oil company will drive CoP28 towerd an outcome that will give the world hope in the looming shadow of a mass extinction.

Nakate: “The United Nations has made it clear that the world needs to cut its emissions by 45 percent by 2030 to have a chance at staying under the 1.5C warming threshold. Currently, carbon capture and storage technology is highly expensive and simply does not exist at the necessary scale to make even a scratch on that target. We do not have time for fairytale solutions designed to save the oil and gas industry.

“UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called investing in new fossil fuel projects ‘moral and economic madness.’ The International Energy Agency says we cannot afford to put in any new finance for coal, oil or gas if we are to meet net-zero targets; instead, we need a massive deployment of renewable energy. The science is clear and the goal is clear, but we are still missing the global leadership to take us there.

“We can no longer prevent the climate crisis, but every fraction of a degree of further warming will make heatwaves more intense, droughts more pro- longed and storms more powerful.

“Every year that passes without a rapid transformation of our economies away from fossil fuels means more will be lost to the climate crisis.”

The truth is no longer just inconvenient. It’s beginning to hurt.