Climate Conversations
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Delegates
    • Alumni and Advisors
  • Climate Conversation
    • Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Science Communication
    • COP Collection
    • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Find Us
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Delegates
    • Alumni and Advisors
  • Climate Conversation
    • Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Science Communication
    • COP Collection
    • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Find Us

Climate Conversations

COP27

On Site Assessment from Thursday 11/17 and Friday 11/18

18/11/2022

3 Comments

 
by Keith Peterman
​
​Friday November 18, 2022

Greetings once again from Sharm El-Sheikh,
Headline today: UN Secretary General and COP27 President urge Parties to restore trust and deliver through much-needed agreements. 
All here at COP27 recognize the existential threat of climate change. All accept the science and the need for action now – not kicking the can down the road yet another year as has been the case for 30 years since signing the global climate treaty in Rio. However, contentious negotiations continue. No one was happy with the cover draft I sent you yesterday. Parties worked through the night and released a draft text today. Some had softened positions. In particular, the EU supported Loss and Damage and brought others along. Language on fossil fuels is still weak. Those most adversely impacted by climate disruption remain furious that the text does not include “phaseout of fossil fuels”. Too much to write here, but for those of you interested in process, click this link for the latest text – still being negotiated.
file:///C:/Users/17178/Downloads/1CMA4_1CMP17_1COP27_preliminary_draft_text.pdf
Toward a better world.

Thursday, Nov. 11, 2022
​
For those of you who are following COP27, I will give you my on-site assessment as the COP nears conclusion. First, a statement from the UN Secretary General, “We are at crunch time in the negotiations…The Parties remain divided on a number of significant issues. There is clearly a breakdown in trust between North and South, and between developed and emerging economies.” 
A draft cover text was released today Few are happy with what is included and what is missing.
Loss and Damage
In brief, “loss and damage” does not appear in the text. Those suffering the most from climate disasters have contributed the least to its causes. Vulnerable states demand financial help from the countries who became wealthy through consumption of fossil fuels – the root cause of the climate emergency.
The wealthy G-20 nations produced 81% of the greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. By contrast, all of Africa produced 4%.
Led by the G-77, the global south demands inclusion of loss and damage. G-77 was founded by 77 developing nations in 1964. It currently has 134 members. The global north is expected to pony up the funds.
Of note, China and India are both G-20 and G-77 members.  
I’ve attended multiple press briefing throughout the day by stakeholders including CAN (a network of over 1300 NGOs), the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, and WWF. These stakeholders demand establishing a Loss and Damage fund at COP28.
Quotes:
  • We’re talking about burden sharing – nothing more than that.
  • We know it will take time to add money.
  • We just want a political statement.
  • This is something that we have been asking for 30 years. [note: the UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992]
  • We are living with a climate crisis we did not create.
  • The final text must establish a loss and damage facility.
The EU is perhaps one of the friendliest coalitions among developed economies toward financing the misery faced through climate catastrophes in the developing world. However, developed economies resist installing a new finance mechanism for loss and damage. The primary reason is that it would fall under the original 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This treaty contains Annex I (p32) and Annex II (p33).  
Quotes:
  • We cannot look at the world as it was in 1992.
  • Developing countries are different now than they were in 1992. [note: Neither China nor India were listed as Annex I or Annex II nations. This is the reason the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol]
  • We need a fair share of the burden for those who need to put money on the table. [Note: Ambassador did not explicitly state China or India but it is clear the EU, US, and others expect them to contribute money, not to cop out through language that includes loss and damage under the original UNFCCC. Whew! Negotiations are challenging.]
  • Money must target those most vulnerable.
  • Not all vulnerable states have the same problems.
Mitigation
Of course, the vulnerable nations also demand a “phase out” of all fossil fuels. The wealthy nations want to “phase down unabated coal” and “phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. From the vulnerable countries’ perspective, this gives a ticket to continue using fossil fuels. It is impossible to stay below a 1.5 deg C increase if we continue to use fossil fuels and generate greenhouse gases. We’ve already used up most of the planetary budget.
It's interesting to be here, but frustrating. I’ve participated in every COP since the 2009 COP15 in Copenhagen. We had the grand Paris Agreement at COP21 in 2015. But it primarily laid out goals to be achieved – stay below +2 deg C with ambition for +1.5 deg C. However, action has not yet matched ambition.
To conclude, I maintain hope. Everyone here understands the crisis and accepts the need to act. All here recognize that we are out of time. The challenge is to arrive at global cooperation with meaningful action.
3 Comments
Anna K.
9/12/2022 06:33:16 am

By these findings, and many others, it is obvious that we are in big trouble when it comes to global warming. Unfortunately, people in power either do not believe sold concreate numbers or do not care. I hope that will change in the future.

Reply
anthony Furrule
10/12/2022 05:44:42 am

When evaluated, the sense of discrepancy about the true promoters of the release of carbon into our atmosphere becomes very translucent. Africa, despite its size, only released 4% of the total carbon output when contrasted to the other G20 nations. Countries like the United States which have tremendous sway in promoting more green legislature, and marking a way for other countries to follow has failed miserably at following through with such procedures. In an uneducated society, the importance of reducing our carbon footprint has been minimized, and with so, reducing our chances of coming back from where we now stand.

Reply
Sydni Adams
13/12/2022 01:30:17 am

Big countries like the US and China need to show a change in their use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases, but it looks almost like they prioritize the amount of money something is going to make rather than how it affects the environment. On the other hand, Africa did amazing, contributing only 4% of the total carbon output. I hope these other countries can take notes!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    January 2023
    November 2022
    June 2022
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    April 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All
    Climate
    Climate Change
    Haley Davis
    Oceans

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Noel Feans