Climate Change Impacts Human Rights, Says UN Special Rapporteur

4 March 2016: A global temperature increase of one or two degrees Celsius would adversely affect human rights, including the rights to life, development, food, water, health and housing, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, John Knox, told the Human Rights Council (HRC).

Knox stressed that human rights obligations with respect to climate change include decisions about how much climate protection to pursue, as well as the mitigation and adaptation measures through which protection is achieved.

In its resolution 29/15, the HRC requested the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a detailed 'Analytical study of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the relationship between climate change and the human right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/31/36).' The High Commissioner has asked for additional time and research, and will submit its report to the HRC at its 32nd session.

The Special Rapporteur shared an informal summary of inputs received on the 'Relationship between climate change and the human right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/31/CRP.4),' which is expected to inform OHCHR's final report. The informal summary notes, inter alia, that climate change: threatens to undermine the last half century of gains in development and global health; impacts physical and mental health in several ways; and disproportionately impacts the poor and other disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable groups.

According to the informal summary, respondents called for further integration of human rights in climate action at all levels of governance, as well as further analysis and study of the impacts of climate change on the right to health, among other recommendations.

During discussion, several delegations expressed support for protecting human rights in relation to climate adaptation and mitigation, including the European Union (EU) and Costa Rica. South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, supported enhanced, quick action to adapt to climate change to ensure the full realization of human rights, stressing that climate change threatens sustainable development. The Philippines called for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and scaling up additional and predictable means of implementation. Brazil recognized the impacts of climate change on human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. The EU asked how to better plan and manage urban areas to address synergies among climate change, sustainable development and urbanization.

The world does not need to wait until 2018 to start strengthening its efforts to address climate change and begin implementing the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Special Rapporteur reminded participants in his response, pointing to the use of renewable energy by Iceland, Morocco and Uruguay.

Knox presented on two aspects of his mandate, clarifying the human rights obligations relating to climate change, and on methods of implementing those obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, in Geneva, Switzerland, on 3 March 2016. [UNOG Press Release] [OHCHR Press Release] [A/HRC/31/36] [Special Rapporteur Website]

read more: http://larc.iisd.org/news/climate-change-impacts-human-rights-says-un-special-rapporteur/

---

 

© Climate War Room

Yes, Scientists Can Link Extreme Weather Events To Climate Change

When asked about a particular weather event’s link to climate change, scientists are typically cautious to make definitive statements — especially in the immediate aftermath, before they’ve had the chance to study the event.

But according to a new study, it’s getting easier for scientists to make the link between climate change and some forms of extreme weather. The study, published Friday by the National Academies Press, found that scientific advances over the past several years have helped scientists link increases in frequency and intensity of temperature and precipitation-related events like droughts and heat waves to climate change.

“In the past, a typical climate scientist’s response to questions about climate change’s role in any given extreme weather event was ‘we cannot attribute any single event to climate change,'” the report, completed by a committee of scientists, reads. “The science has advanced to the point that this is no longer true as an unqualified blanket statement. In many cases, it is now often possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human-induced climate change (or another causal factor, such as a specific mode of natural variability) has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes.”

The report calls this branch of science, wherein researchers work to determine whether climate change contributed to a certain event, “event attribution.” To determine how and if climate change is linked to a certain event, scientists typically either reference the observational record of similar events — i.e. the recorded history of droughts leading back several decades — or use models to determine how likely a similar event would be in different warming scenarios. Most studies, the report states, use both of these tactics. More

Warming ocean water undercuts Antarctic ice shelves

“Upside-down rivers” of warm ocean water threaten the stability of floating ice shelves in Antarctica, according to a new study led by researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center published today in Nature Geoscience. The study highlights how parts of Antarctica’s ice sheet may be weakening due to contact with warm ocean water.

“We found that warm ocean water is carving these ‘upside-down rivers,’ or basal channels, into the undersides of ice shelves all around the Antarctic continent. In at least some cases these channels weaken the ice shelves, making them more vulnerable to disintegration,” said Karen Alley, a graduate research assistant at NSIDC and lead author of the study. Alley is also a Ph.D. student in the University of Colorado Boulder’s Department of Geological Sciences.

Ice shelves are thick floating plates of ice that have flowed off the Antarctic continent and spread out onto the ocean. As ice shelves flow out to sea, they push against islands, peninsulas, and bedrock bumps known as “pinning points.” Contact with these features slows the flow of grounded ice off the continent. While ice shelves take thousands of years to grow, previous work has shown that they can disintegrate in a matter of weeks. If more ice shelves disintegrate in the future, loss of contact with pinning points will allow ice to flow more rapidly into the ocean, increasing the rate of sea level rise.

“Ice shelves are really vulnerable parts of the ice sheet, because climate change hits them from above and below,” said Ted Scambos, NSIDC lead scientist and study co-author. “They are really important in braking the ice flow to the ocean.”

The features form as buoyant plumes of warm and fresh water rise and flow along the underside of an ice shelf, carving channels much like upside-down rivers. The channels can be tens of miles long, and up to 800 feet “deep.”

When a channel is carved into the base of an ice shelf, the top of the ice shelf sags, leaving a visible depression in the relatively smooth ice surface. Alley and her colleagues mapped the locations of these depressions all around the Antarctic continent using satellite imagery, as well as radar data that images the channels through the ice, mapping the shape of the ice-ocean boundary.

The team also used satellite laser altimetry, which measures the height of an ice shelf surface with high accuracy, to document how quickly some of the channels were growing. The data show that growing channels on the rapidly melting Getz Ice Shelf in West Antarctica can bore into the ice shelf base at rates of approximately 10 meters (33 feet) each year.

The mapping shows that basal channels have a tendency to form along the edges of islands and peninsulas, which are already weak areas on ice shelves. The team observed two locations where ice shelves are fracturing along basal channels, clear evidence that basal channel presence can weaken ice shelves to the point of breaking in vulnerable areas.

While no ice shelves have completely disintegrated due to carving by basal channels, the study points to the need for more observation and study of these features, said co-author Helen Amanda Fricker of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. “It's feasible that as ocean temperatures around Antarctica continue to rise, melting in basal channels could contribute to increased erosion of ice shelves from below."

The study, “Impacts of warm water on Antarctic ice shelf stability through basal channel formation,” was led by University of Colorado Boulder Ph.D. student Karen Alley, who worked with coauthors Ted Scambos of NSIDC and Matthew Siegfried and Helen Amanda Fricker of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. Their work was funded in part by NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey. More

Contacts

Jane Beitler,Communications, National Snow and Ice Data Center, press@nsidc.org, +1-303-492-1497
Brittany Hook, Communications Coordinator, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, scrippsnews@ucsd.edu, 858-534-3624

 

© Climate War Room

A Take-No-Prisoners World of Oil

It’s evident that we’re still on a planet where oil rules. The question increasingly is: What exactly does it rule over? After all, every barrel of oil that’s burned contributes to a fast-approaching future in which the weather grows hotter and more extreme, droughts and wildfires spread, sea levels rise precipitously, ice continues to melt away in the globe's coldest reaches, and... well, you know that story well enough by now. In the meantime, Planet Earth has a glut of oil on hand and that, it turns out, doesn’t mean -- not for the major oil companies nor even for the major oil states -- that the good times are getting ready to roll.

Of all the powers struggling with that oil glut and the plunging energy prices that have gone with it, none may be more worth watching than Saudi Arabia. While exporting its own extremists and its extreme brand of Islam from Afghanistan to Syria, and lending a decades-long hand to the destabilization of the Greater Middle East, that kingdom has itself been a paragon of stability. Nothing, however, lasts forever, and so keeping an eye on the Saudis is a must. That’s especially so since the latest version of the royal family has also made what might be called the American mistake (with the backing of the Obama administration, no less) and for the first time plunged the Saudi military directly into a typically unwinnable if brutal war in neighboring Yemen.

Combine the destabilizing and blowback effects of wars that won’t end, including the Syrian one, and of oil prices that refuse to rise significantly and, despite the kingdom’s copious money reserves, you have a formula for potential domestic unrest. Already the royals are cutting their domestic subsidies to their own population, pulling billions of dollars in aid out of Lebanon, and exploring a possible $10 billion bank loan.

As TomDispatch’s invaluable energy expert Michael Klare suggests today, when oil prices began plummeting in 2015, the Saudis launched an “oil war of attrition,” imagining that others would be devastated by it (as OPEC partners Nigeria and Venezuela already have been) but that the royals themselves would emerge triumphant.

Should the unimaginable happen, however, and should the kingdom itself begin to come unglued in a Greater Middle East that is increasingly the definition of chaos -- watch out. Tom

Energy Wars of Attrition
The Irony of Oil Abundance
By Michael T. Klare

Three and a half years ago, the International Energy Agency (IEA) triggered headlines around the world by predicting that the United States would overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world’s leading oil producer by 2020 and, together with Canada, would become a net exporter of oil around 2030. Overnight, a new strain of American energy triumphalism appeared and experts began speaking of “Saudi America,” a reinvigorated U.S.A. animated by copious streams of oil and natural gas, much of it obtained through the then-pioneering technique of hydro-fracking. “This is a real energy revolution,” the Wall Street Journal crowed in an editorial heralding the IEA pronouncement.

The most immediate effect of this “revolution,” its boosters proclaimed, would be to banish any likelihood of a “peak” in world oil production and subsequent petroleum scarcity. The peak oil theorists, who flourished in the early years of the twenty-first century, warned that global output was likely to reach its maximum attainable level in the near future, possibly as early as 2012, and then commence an irreversible decline as the major reserves of energy were tapped dry. The proponents of this outlook did not, however, foresee the coming of hydro-fracking and the exploitation of previously inaccessible reserves of oil and natural gas in underground shale formations. More

© Climate War Room

5 Ways to Sustain the Corporate Renewables Market

5 Ways to Sustain the Corporate Renewables Market

THE CORPORATION MOVES IN

The year 2015 represented a major turning point for electricity generation in the United States. The country retired 14 GW of fossil-fueled generation. Meanwhile, it brought online 16.4 GW of carbon-free generation, with wind energy leading the mix at 8.5 GW of new installed capacity, according to BNEF's Sustainable Energy in America 2016 Factbook. Natural gas, despite historical low commodity prices, brought online just 6 GW. This is an exciting sign of a changing tide, but the U.S. bulk power fleet today totals ~1,100 GW of capacity, and two-thirds of generation still comes from fossil fuels. Renewables still have much ground left to cover.

The good news is that renewable capacity growth has a new ally, with the potential of mobilizing tens—at times, hundreds—of additional MWs at each step: corporate demand for renewable energy.

RMI’s Business Renewables Center (BRC) has been focusing on renewables growth in large chunks—through corporations’ appetite to contract large amounts of electricity. And its member companies have been doing exactly that, in record numbers. Though a young market, corporate deals for large-scale renewables have been growing fast, from 0.56 GW in 2013, to 1.18 in 2014, to 3.44 last year. Meanwhile, the number of market participants has blossomedfrom 1 to 26. That corporate demand for renewables is now becoming the nation’s leading source of demand for wind power and an increasingly important source of demand for solar, too. More

 

 

© Climate War Room

5 Ways to Sustain the Corporate Renewables Market

5 Ways to Sustain the Corporate Renewables Market

THE CORPORATION MOVES IN

The year 2015 represented a major turning point for electricity generation in the United States. The country retired 14 GW of fossil-fueled generation. Meanwhile, it brought online 16.4 GW of carbon-free generation, with wind energy leading the mix at 8.5 GW of new installed capacity, according to BNEF's Sustainable Energy in America 2016 Factbook. Natural gas, despite historical low commodity prices, brought online just 6 GW. This is an exciting sign of a changing tide, but the U.S. bulk power fleet today totals ~1,100 GW of capacity, and two-thirds of generation still comes from fossil fuels. Renewables still have much ground left to cover.

The good news is that renewable capacity growth has a new ally, with the potential of mobilizing tens—at times, hundreds—of additional MWs at each step: corporate demand for renewable energy.

RMI’s Business Renewables Center (BRC) has been focusing on renewables growth in large chunks—through corporations’ appetite to contract large amounts of electricity. And its member companies have been doing exactly that, in record numbers. Though a young market, corporate deals for large-scale renewables have been growing fast, from 0.56 GW in 2013, to 1.18 in 2014, to 3.44 last year. Meanwhile, the number of market participants has blossomedfrom 1 to 26. That corporate demand for renewables is now becoming the nation’s leading source of demand for wind power and an increasingly important source of demand for solar, too. More

 

 

© Climate War Room

Power to the People

The way we generate and distribute electricity is changing. Now we have the opportunity to choose where we get our power from: to be our own mini power station, or to be tied to the utility company’s grid.

Graham Morse

PV solar panels allow consumers to generate their own electricity. And here in Cayman we can generate plenty. The trouble is it hasn’t been economic to store it for use during the night. So most of the homes and businesses in Cayman which generate their own power use CUC’s CORE (Customer Own Renewable Energy) program: they sell their power to CUC, and buy the electricity they use like everyone else.

But recent development in the production of lithium-ion batteries is a game-changer. Compared with lead-acid batteries, which have been around for a hundred years, lithium-ion batteries are smaller, lighter, produce constant power and have a greatly extended life. But because there was limited demand, they were very expensive. Now, fueled by growing demand from electric vehicles, battery manufacturers have gone into mass production, bringing down the cost. Tesla led the way. Last year they announced the launch of ‘Powerwall,’ a home power storage battery system that will fit on your kitchen wall.

And the cost of battery storage has plummeted. Five years ago it was over $1000 per KW, today it is $250 per KW and it is forecast to drop by 75% over the next year five years. This means that it is now financially viable to install a battery system that will store the power made in the day for use at night. Homes and businesses have a choice: burning fossil fuel and rising process with CUC, or going ‘off-grid’ – described in the industry as ‘grid defection.’ More Cayman Renewable Energy Association CREA

 

© Climate War Room

Steering Committee on Partnerships for Small Island Developing States

Steering Committee on Partnerships for Small Island Developing States

25 Feb 2016 3:00 PM - 4:15 PMECOSOC Chamber

On December 2015, the General Assembly decided (A/70/472/Add.2 - paragraph 11) to establish the Small Island Developing States Partnership (SIDS) Framework, in accordance with paragraph 101 of the SAMOA Pathway, to monitor and ensure the full implementation of pledges and commitments through partnerships for small island developing States.The SIDS Partnership Framework consists, in short, of:

• A Steering Committee - open to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies. The Committee should support the follow-up of existing, and promote and advocate the launching of new, small island developing States partnerships. Entities of the United Nations system, international and regional organizations, major groups and other stakeholders will be invited to contribute, The Committee will be supported by the Secretariat, in particular the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States.
• Organization of an annual an action-oriented, results-focused Global Multi-stakeholder SIDS Partnership Dialogue. The dialogue will provide an opportunity for reviewing progress made by existing partnerships, including, where applicable, review inputs from regional and national partnership dialogues, and be a place for sharing of good practices, lessons learned and challenges and solutions from SIDS partnerships. The dialogue will also be a platform for the launch of new partnerships for Small Island developing States.
• Development of a standardized partnership reporting template and process of SIDS partnerships, which takes into account existing reporting mechanisms and the need to minimize the reporting burden of all stakeholders involved in SIDS partnerships.

The SIDS Partnership Framework also encourages national and regional partnership dialogues to be organized through existing forums and meetings. The first meeting of the Steering Committee will be held on 25 February 2016, from 3pm - 4.15pm in the ECOSOC Chamber, UNHQ. The President of the General Assembly has appointed Maldives and Italy as co-chairs of the Steering Committee. More

 

 

© Climate War Room

University College of the Cayman Islands Offering Partial scholarships in Logistics

Anyone who may be interested in studying Logistics in Frankfurt and Rotterdam this summer, UCCI is offering a partial scholarship. Interested persons who have at least a Bachelor’s degree should contact J.D. Mosley-Matchett this week. +1(345).623-0552

 

© Climate War Room

TEDx University College of the Cayman Islands

Did you get a chance to see Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, etc.) doing her TED talk on Monday evening? If not, you can catch her online at:http://www.ted.com/talks/shonda_rhimes_my_year_of_saying_yes_to_everything

Her talk entitled “My year of saying yes to everything” was absolutely inspiring.

But that’s what TED is about, as you already know if you were one of the 124 people who registered for this past Tuesday’s simulcast at UCCI of the big TED 2016 event in Vancouver, Canada.

However, nothing beats the thrill of seeing live speakers, engaging with them face-to-face, and discussing those great ideas with other TED event attendees.

Of course, the cheapest admission ticket for TED 2016 in Vancouver was US$8500. (Not an admission price that just anyone can afford in these challenging economic times.)

So, keep in mind that just next month, on March 19^th, you can experience the same excitement of live speakers and great ideas at TEDxUCCI 2016. The theme this year is FutureVision…and it will undoubtedly be the most insightful TEDx ever for investigating the many pressing issues facing Cayman and the world.

From 10 a.m. until 3 p.m., you’ll hear great talks on topics including conservation, energy use and production, the ocean’s potential, heath, technical literacy, economic and social sustainability, creative professions, and dealing effectively with today’s complex world. There will also be a new production by the UCCI theatre arts students and great food prepared by UCCI’s Hospitality students.

Nick Robson of the Cayman Institute shall be presenting a talk entitled Predicting The Future. Come out and be entertained and hopefully learn a thing or two.

Early Bird 2-for-1: Bring a Friend for Free!

Through the end of this week, two registrants can pay just one admission fee to attend TEDxUCCI 2016. Both people must register for the TEDxUCCI 2016 event online atwww.TEDxUCCI.ky and then both registration confirmations can be taken to the UCCI campus within 10 working days for payment. As long as both registrations were made before February 21st, only one admission fee will be charged.

Admission costs $25 for non-students and $10 for students. But this week’s 2-for-1 special can provide as much as a 50% savings for TEDx-enthusiasts on a budget. TEDxUCCI 2016 is hosted by UCCI and generously sponsored by the Ministry of Community Affairs, Youth & Sports and Foster’s Food Fair.

To register or for more information, go to www.TEDxUCCI.ky or contact info@TEDxUCCI.ky

 

© Climate War Room

WEF: 2016 Year of Implementation on Climate Change, SDGs

23 January 2016: The World Economic Forum's (WEF) Annual Meeting convened under the theme, 'Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution,' with the aim of building a shared understanding of current changes and shaping a collective future that places humans at the center.

Participants reflected that 2016 must be a year of implementation on climate change and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The WEF Annual Meeting addressed, among other topics: climate change; environmental protection and resource scarcity; food security and agriculture; inclusive, sustainable growth and security; employment, skills and human capital; and gender parity. It also showcased the private sector's role in achieving the SDGs. The event brought together over 40 Heads of State and government with 2,500 leaders from UN agencies, business and civil society.

'The New Climate and Development Imperative' session addressed the implications of the Paris Agreement and the SDGs, drivers for action for development and climate targets, and the role of technology in improving ambition over time. Speaking at the session, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed that “The SDGs and climate change must go together.” He outlined five steps forward: conversion of national climate plans into bankable investment strategies and projects; financing for developing countries to use low-carbon sources to meet high energy demands; increased attention and resources for climate resilience; increased climate actions at all levels, including public-private partnerships; and ratification of the Paris Agreement. Also addressing the session, Norway's Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, stated that “We will never manage to reach climate targets if we don't create social fairness in the world.”

Another session on 'A New Climate for Doing Business' reflected on the opportunities and responsibilities for business, entrepreneurship and innovation as a result of the Paris Agreement. Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), highlighted the potential for change in developing countries, which she said “represent our biggest opportunity to support…growth in a clean, predictable and safe way.” Observing that the world needs US$5.5 trillion per year to meet the Paris Agreement commitments, Stuart Gulliver, HSBC Holdings, expressed confidence that “there is enough money in the private sector to do this.” Panelists shared their companies' efforts to, inter alia: transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy; advocate for a new climate economy; and put a price on carbon for internal operations and supply chains.

In a keynote speech delivered at the Global Goals Dinner, UN General Assembly (UNGA) President Mogens Lykketoft called for a “focus on getting off to the best start possible” in achieving the SDGs. He underlined the importance of signals that “those with power and privilege will live up to their responsibilities” to achieve the Goals and ensure the SDGs gain traction. Lykketoft explained that he will host a high-level meeting in April to showcase implementation. He asked world leaders to come prepared to share their country plans to achieve the Goals and called upon the private sector to align their business practices with the Goals, including on issues such as the environment and taxation.

At a Global Compact event, Ban underscored the business community's “enormous power to create decent jobs, open access to education and basic services, unlock energy solutions and end discrimination…[and] drive global progress.” He stressed 2016 as critical in “turning global promises into reality,” calling on governments to “take the lead with decisive steps” and business to “provide essential solutions and resources that put our world on a more sustainable path.” Ban welcomed the Global Compact's steps to translate the SDGs into action and innovation, highlighting the potential of its 85 Global Compact Local Networks to further mobilize action.

“There is no business case for enduring poverty,” observed Unilever CEO Paul Polman at WEF press conference. He called for tackling poverty, inequality and environmental challenges, saying “every business will benefit from operating in a more equitable, resilient world if we achieve the SDGs.” Polman and former UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch-Brown launched The Global Commission on Business and Sustainable Development, which aims to articulate the economic case for businesses to engage in the SDGs. The Commission will present a report in 2017 that: analyzes how business models can align profitability with social purpose; maps financial tools for aligning economic and social returns; shows how collaboration among governments, international organizations, civil society and the private sector can build a future where businesses can promote job creation and inclusive, sustainable growth; and examines the risks to business performance and stability from not addressing the SDGs.

In a blog post on the WEF, Paul Ladd, Director of the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), suggests three ways for business leaders to commit to the SDGs and increase resilience to future shocks. Ladd describes the positive feedback loops between technology and taxes while cautioning that advances in technology can exacerbate inequalities and the politics of tax reform “are slow and difficult.” He highlights universal social protection as critical in supporting people through their active working lives and beyond, including ensuring a minimum level of income to support socially acceptable standards of living, access to essential services and opportunities for lifelong education and training.

On business and growth, participants called for a new model of growth beyond a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Economist Joseph Stiglitz stressed, “What we measure informs what we do. And if we're measuring the wrong thing, we're going to do the wrong thing.” Similarly, MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson said GDP does not measure “how well we are all doing” but “counts the things that we're buying and selling.”

On gender equality, a panel convened on 'Progress Towards Parity.' Sheryl Sanberg, Facebook, described the “toddler wage gap,” saying gender inequality starts very young. Actress Emma Watson observed that full female participation in the workforce would be “the single biggest stimulus to the economy” and stressed that the world will never achieve gender equality unless everyone—women and men, girls and boys, are involved.

“Women are chronically under-represented in leadership roles and in formal employment overall,” UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka said at the launch of the inaugural ‘HeforShe Parity Report,' which finds that the proportion of senior leadership roles held by women ranges from 11 to 33% among the world's ten leading companies. The report presents data on gender diversity in the workforce, including data on board membership, leadership roles and new hires among ten companies.

Sessions also convened on, inter alia: financing and operationalizing the SDGs; the global science outlook; and regional and national economic outlooks. Briefings took place on WEF Issue Briefs, including on the plastics economy, the gender gap and jobs. Ban appointed 17 SDG Advocates and launched a panel on women's economic empowerment. More

WEF 46 took place in Davos, Switzerland, from 20-23 January 2016. [UN Secretary-General Statement] [WEF Press Release on A New Climate for Doing Business] [UNFCCC Executive Secretary Reflection on WEF] [UNGA President Statement at Global Goals Dinner] [UN Press Release 20 January/ on Global Compact] [WEF News on Gender Parity] [WEF Press Release on Watson Statement] [Sandberg Statement] [UN Women Press Release 22 January] [UN Women Executive Director Statement] [WEF Recap] [WEF Press Release on Commission Launch] [IISD RS Story on Launch of SDG Advocates]

 

©

Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS) Baseline Report and Assessment

Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS) Baseline Report and Assessment

http://www.worldwatch.org/cserms/baseline-report

The Caribbean region stands at a crossroads, faced with several critical challenges associated with the generation, distribution, and use of energy. Despite the availability of tremendous domestic renewable energy resources, the region remains disproportionately dependent on imported fossil fuels, which exposes it to volatile oil prices, limits economic development, and degrades local natural resources. This ongoing import dependence also fails to establish a precedent for global action to mitigate the long-term consequences of climate change, which pose a particularly acute threat to small-island states and low-lying coastal nations.

While onerous, these shared challenges are far outweighed by the region’s tremendous potential for sustainable energy solutions. By acting on this potential, the Caribbean can assume a leading role in the global effort to combat climate change while promoting sustainable regional economic and societal development. Representing a geographically, culturally, and economically diverse cross-section of the region, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) provides the ideal platform to construct the legislative and regulatory frameworks necessary to achieve this transition.

CARICOM represents 15 diverse member states: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. Although these states vary widely, they face many common energy challenges.

CARICOM has already begun to play a crucial role in the regional transition to sustainable energy. Recognizing the need to develop a coordinated regional approach to expedite uptake of renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions in the Caribbean, CARICOM adopted its regional Energy Policy in 2013 after a decade in development. The policy charts a new climate-compatible development path that harnesses domestic renewable energy resources, minimizes environmental damage, and spurs social opportunity, economic growth, and innovation.

To translate these intentions into action, the CARICOM Secretariat commissioned the Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS), designed to build on existing efforts in the region and to provide CARICOM member states with a coherent strategy for transitioning to sustainable energy. In this C-SERMS Baseline Assessment and Report, the Worldwatch Institute provides an analysis of the region’s current energy and energy policy situation, evaluates regional potential for renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions, and recommends regional targets for energy sector transformation in the short, medium, and long terms.

Download Report: http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/C-SERMS_Baseline_10.29.2015.pdf

 

 

©

Swapping national debt for action on climate change could be the solution we've been looking for

Last month’s global agreement on climate change was a remarkable gift to the world and to future generations.

One hundred and eighty-eight countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, setting out what they are prepared to do to reduce emissions and build climate resilience. Developed country governments have reaffirmed their commitment to raise $100 billion a year for climate action, with small and vulnerable countries first on the list for assistance. As the Prime Minister of Tuvalu - a Pacific nation threatened by catastrophic sea level rises - said during the Paris summit: "If you save Tuvalu, you save the world."

Now the New Year has arrived and it’s time to act on these resolutions. A rapid and sustained flow of climate finance for the vulnerable developing countries is central to managing the climate challenge. Thus far the flow of climate financing has been less than satisfactory. This must change. Climate financing should not lead to a reduction in traditional official development assistance.

That’s why global warming was a top priority of Commonwealth leaders at their recent meeting in Malta. Their Statement on Climate Change provided timely, important political impetus to the Paris Conference. And they generated some good ideas to free up funds for climate action.

Here’s one: swapping national debt for climate change action. Many vulnerable countries are so burdened by debt they simply can’t afford to address global warming. Jamaica, for example, is struggling with a public debt to GDP ratio of 140 per cent. For the Seychelles, it’s 65 per cent. Think what could happen if countries like these lowered their burden by taking action on climate change: they could expand marine protected areas, strengthen coastal defences, reform fisheries policies, promote water conservation, manage coastal zones, invest in renewable energy and create institutions to advance their plans — working their way out of debt at the same time.

The Commonwealth’s proposal for a Multilateral Debt Swap for Climate Action has been recognized by the United Nations as a promising option to address the twin challenges of unsustainable debt and climate change. Swaps could be supported by the Climate Finance Access Hub that’s just been launched by the Commonwealth to help small and vulnerable countries access climate finance and build institutional capacity.

It doesn’t end there. The Paris agreement has given markets the clear signal they need to scale up investments that will generate low-emission, climate-resilient development. With the ambitious results emanating from Paris, what was once unthinkable is now unstoppable. The private sector is already investing increasingly in a low-emission future. Climate solutions are increasingly affordable and available, and many more are poised to come, especially after the success of Paris. More

 

©

Climate Change Diplomacy and Small Island Developing States

While multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognize the enormous global challenges posed by climatic changes, these agreements often fall short on pragmatic financial and other mechanisms to assist the most vulnerable countries in addressing these challenges.

Shyam Saran, Special Envoy of the
Prime Minister of India for
Climate Change

“As internationally acclaimed Professor of Environmental Law, Daniel Esty, stated: “Simply put, in a world of ecological interdependence, there can be no free riders. Of course, poorer countries can and should expect, as a matter of equity, that richer ones will shoulder a larger share of the cost burden”

http://unu.edu/publications/articles/climate-change-diplomacy-and-small-island-developing-states.html

Contemporary climate change diplomacy mirrors this phenomenon, as science and global politics interact and converge to confront the vulnerabilities of small island developing States (SIDS) where sustainable livelihoods are threatened by climate change-induced food, water, health and other insecurities.

Science (climate scientists) and politics (diplomats and Foreign Ministry officials) may not always speak the same language, but climate change diplomacy (inter-governmental negotiations on climate change issues) inevitably brings them together into a “marriage of convenience”. In order to address the special needs of vulnerable countries like SIDS, there is consensus between science and politics that the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” offers the best paradigm and institutional framework to understand and confront the asymmetries in the international system.

Paradoxically, within this consensus lies deep-rooted disagreements as to the best ways to finance mitigation and adaptation programs in SIDS — including, among other issues, how to diffuse the emerging climate-friendly technologies as widely and as fairly as possible. To effectively address these issues, the peculiar developmental and technological challenges facing SIDS must be assessed in the context of the gaps, failures and limitations of present and past global environmental funding facilities such as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

“Common but differentiated responsibilities”

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” recognizes the asymmetries of the international system, especially the differential levels of technological, financial, economic and human capacities between industrialized/developed and developing countries in international environmental negotiations. Despite these asymmetries, every nation has an obligation to participate in joint efforts to tackle shared global environmental problems according to each nation’s capacity and level of development. However, industrialized countries have an obligation to bear a greater burden of these shared problems.

As internationally acclaimed Professor of Environmental Law, Daniel Esty, stated: “Simply put, in a world of ecological interdependence, there can be no free riders. Of course, poorer countries can and should expect, as a matter of equity, that richer ones will shoulder a larger share of the cost burden.”

Multilateral environmental agreements (at least since the decade of the 1970s) have recognized this principle as an accepted norm in global environmental governance. For example, Principle 9 of the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (held in 1972) calls for “the transfer of substantial quantities of financial and technological assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries”.

Principle 20 of the Stockholm Declaration states that “the free flow of up-to-date scientific information and transfer of experience must be supported and assisted” and “environmental technologies should be made available to developing countries on terms which would encourage their wide dissemination without constituting an economic burden on the developing countries”. Similarly, twenty years after Stockholm, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) reaffirmed “common but differentiated responsibilities” in Principles 7 and 9.

On climate change specifically, Article 3(1) of the UNFCCC, provides that “the parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities. Accordingly, the developed country parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.”

Article 3(2) states that “the specific needs and special circumstances of developing country parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change… should be given full consideration”.

The repeated and unambiguous codification of this principle in many MEAs is evidence that it is now widely accepted by the international community as a fundamental principle in climate change diplomacy. The principle, according to the Shyam Saran, the Indian Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, is “based on the acknowledgment of historical responsibility; that is, climate change is taking place as a result of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that have been accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of over two centuries of fossil fuel-based industrial activity in developed countries”.

This is not to suggest that the obligation to mitigate climate change should be borne exclusively and solely by developed countries. Rather, developed countries must show leadership.

Saran also stated that “developing countries also have an obligation, and that is to pursue a path of ecologically sustainable development consistent with their goals of economic and social development and poverty eradication…. There is the concept of respective capabilities; that is, a recognition of the diverse levels of economic development and incomes among the parties, and, hence, a differentiated contribution to the global effort”.

“Common but differentiated responsibilities” thus raises very complex questions of obligation, equity, technological capacity, fairness and the universal participation of “all nations” in climate change negotiations.

Does science drive climate change diplomacy?

Climate scientists, activists and climate change negotiators often refer to the “overwhelming” scientific evidence of the impact of GHG emissions: extreme climatic events (floods, shorter and warmer growing seasons), sea-level rise (causing erosion and salinity in coastal areas), melting of glaciers (causing water scarcity) and many other phenomena. While all of these are shared global problems, their impact will be much more severe in SIDS.

Focusing on the impact of climate change on small islands, the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found in its 2007 Synthesis Report that by mid-century, “climate change is expected to reduce water resources in many small islands, e.g., in the Caribbean and Pacific, to the point where they become insufficient to meet demand during low-rainfall periods”. Further, global sea-level rise is “expected to exacerbate inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal hazards, thus threatening vital infrastructure, settlements and facilities that support the livelihood of island communities,” and “erosion of beaches and coral bleaching is expected to affect local resources”. The report also found that with higher temperatures, “increased invasion of non-native species is expected to occur, particularly on mid- and high-latitude islands”.

Corroborating most of these findings, the UNFCC Secretariat, in the 2008 Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries, identified that “all Caribbean, Indian Ocean and North and South Pacific small island states will experience warming”. Moreover, summer rainfall in the Caribbean will decrease, whilst annual rainfall elsewhere (equatorial Pacific, northern Indian Ocean, Seychelles and Maldives) will increase, along with the “increasing intensity of tropical cyclones, storm surge, coral bleaching and land inundation”.

“The impact [of extreme climatic events] is much more severe in the world’s tropical zones — the Least Developed Countries and the Small Island Developing States.” – Shyam Saran

Addressing the vulnerabilities of SIDS to climate change

To be sustainable and efficient in the context of the SIDS, as elsewhere in most of the developing world, climate change adaptation and mitigation require enormous financial resources, technology transfer and, most importantly, effective national, regional and global policy and governance frameworks. In order to develop and strengthen the coping capacities of the most vulnerable, adaptation and mitigation measures must be targeted, with the SIDS having clear “ownership” of these measures.

Financing/funding proposals have led to establishment of the Adaptation Fund under the UNFCCC, which currently receives a small percentage (around 2 per cent) of proceeds from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Climate change negotiators, especially those from developing countries, have called for an increase in the capitalization of the Adaptation Fund. While “funding/donor fatigue” is always a serious problem in global environmental funding/financing facilities, the Adaptation Fund, as presently capitalized, will not be sufficient to fund all the necessary adaptation projects in SIDS.

Most negotiators have commended the governance structure of the Adaptation Fund under the UNFCCC for its fair and equal representation of both developed and developing countries. The same can hardly be said of the proposed “climate” or “green” fund as proposed by Mexico, India and other developing countries. If and when such fund is agreed upon in the negotiations, its governance structure should be patterned after the structure of the Adaptation Fund.

For SIDS, it remains to be seen how far contemporary climate change governance architecture will go in codifying core responsibilities and obligations to be borne by the “international community”, especially the worst emitters, towards addressing their peculiar vulnerabilities. How can SIDS be empowered to effectively negotiate this deal, given the asymmetries in the international system? In all of this, technology transfer remains critically important.

“India and other developing countries have put forward the view that 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent of the GDP of developed countries should be earmarked for a climate fund under the UNFCCC.” – Shyam Saran.

Will green technology be for the rich?

Numerous proposals have been made in climate change negotiations for mechanisms aimed at diffusing green technology between developed and developing countries. Most of the proposals emphasize a form of “public-private partnership”. Because acquiring the necessary licenses to such technologies would inevitably implicate intellectual property “rights”, making such technologies available as public goods in SIDS and most developing countries would prove exceedingly difficult and raises questions of “who owns the knowledge economy”?

To address this technology conundrum, India has proposed “a global network of innovation centres that could promote local and regional action both on mitigation and adaptation, taking into account local circumstances and particularities”.

To achieve this, says Saran, “we need to create a global platform for such collaboration on certain key technologies, for example, solar energy generation and storage, biomass energy, and a whole series of clean coal technologies…. This must be a publicly funded and government-led effort, but it can certainly draw upon public-private partnerships.”

Because SIDS are mostly under-developed, least-developed or developing countries, they are “technologically and economically challenged” in terms of (i) the scientific sophistication to innovate new technologies, and (ii) the financial resources to access them in fair and equitable terms. As such, pooling scientific and technological capabilities across the globe to generate transformational technologies should be anchored pragmatically on the time-hallowed principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

Climate change and SIDS: The way forward

In a workshop organized by the United Nations University Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP) on “climate change diplomacy and small island states”, in partnership with the Universidad Catolica de Santo Domingo (Catholic University of Santo Domingo) in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, on 14 and 15 July 2011, participants — mostly from the Caribbean region — explored the way forward for SIDS in climate change negotiations.

In his keynote address, Carlos Fuller, Deputy Director of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre in Belize, posed the question: “Why should small island developing States be concerned about climate change?” In responding to this question, Fuller argued that although “SIDS have been very effective climate change negotiators since 1990 and have maintained this stature for the past 21 years, they have not reaped the benefits of their endeavors”.

“How many adaptation projects have been supported by the financial mechanism of the Convention, the Global Environmental Facility? Relatively few, given the acknowledged vulnerability of small island States,” he said.

Furthermore, Fuller explained that there are many reasons why SIDS have not attracted the interventions required to combat the adverse impacts of climate change: First, many of the officials involved in addressing climate change have other duties and responsibilities in their home countries. (Climate change is usually another task that was appended to their jobs). Second, climate change interventions are usually in sectors over which the climate change focal point has very little or no influence (e.g., diversification in the agricultural sector requires the active involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture), and relevant authorities may not always heed the warnings of the local climate change experts.

This raises the need for capacity building and policy coherence in SIDS. Related to this is the capacity of SIDS, because of their “smallness”, to negotiate climate deals effectively in global forums.

As Fuller observed, “when SIDS delegates attend the climate change negotiations, they could easily be overwhelmed. The annual sessions of the Conference of the Parties now attract between 10,000 and 15,000 participants, and this exploded to over 40,000 in Copenhagen two years ago. It is easy for small island delegations consisting of one or two persons to wander around from plenary sessions to side events to booths, and be presented with a series of decisions at the end of two weeks which they had no input in developing and whose very language seems irrelevant to their concerns”.

The creation of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has enhanced the negotiating capacity of SIDS. AOSIS is a coalition of small island and low-lying coastal countries that share similar development challenges and concerns about the environment, especially their vulnerability to the adverse effects of global climate change. The alliance functions primarily as an ad hoc lobby and negotiating voice for SIDS within the United Nations system. AOSIS has a membership of 42 States and observers, drawn from all regions of the world: Africa, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, Pacific and South China Sea. Thirty-seven are members of the United Nations, close to 28 per cent of developing countries and 20 per cent of the UN′s total membership. Together, SIDS communities constitute some 5 per cent of the global population.

In conclusion, in order to be sustainable, climate change diplomacy must address the technological, financial and policy needs of SIDS in pragmatic ways. This is not a matter of “charity” or “aid”. It is an obligation owed to them by the international community as a whole.

While global resources are never in short supply to achieve this, only a fair, equitable and distributive multilateral governance facility stands to protect and promote their needs and meet their expectations as vulnerable societies in a global village characterized by asymmetries and socio-economic inequalities between nation-States. More

♦ ♦ ♦

This article is based on an ongoing research project funded by the United Nations University Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP) entitled “Climate Change Diplomacy: ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility’ — Past Lessons, Challenges, and Future Directions for Small Island Developing States”. The first project workshop, on the theme “Climate Change Diplomacy and Small Island Developing States”, hosted by the Catholic University of Santo Domingo in July 2011, was attended by researchers and policymakers from Belize, Guyana, Dominican Republic, Timor-Leste, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados and Suriname. The workshop was coordinated by Obijiofor Aginam, Academic Officer and Head of International Cooperation and Development at UNU-ISP in Tokyo, and William Onzivu, Lecturer, School of Law, Bradford University, Bradford, UK.

 

©