As Europe stands accused of blocking the protection of intact natural forests and introducing logging-friendly language into the UN draft climate deal, we take a look at some of the key components that need to be in an effective deal for saving the world’s forests.
As Nathaniel Dyer of the Rainforest Foundation UK explains, saving forests is about a lot more than simply throwing money at the problem. To get the UN forestry talks back on track we need to recognise that land rights, good governance and managing demand are also critical. And payment for forest protection should come from public funds rather than carbon markets.
An analysis of the UN climate talks in Bangkok with Saleemul Huq – a veteran who has been to “practically all of them”. While Norway has announced a 40% cut in their emissions by 2020, the other rich countries seem to want to run as fast as possible from their legal and moral obligations. But their premature call to kill the Kyoto Protocol has been fiercely resisted by poor countries. Can rich countries put deep cuts and adequate financing and technology on the table in time to save the deal and prevent globally catastrophic climate change? Includes an assessment of rich country targets by the Association of Small Island States and a damning speech by the Youth Delegation.
Saleemul Huq is Senior Fellow in Climate Change at the International Institute for Environment & Development – who has also been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s last two assessment reports.
Yesterday Europe blocked the protection of natural forests at the Bangkok Climate Talks. Is the Prince of Wales Rainforest Project (PRP) Emergency Package an appropriate alternative solution for forests? We speak to Tony Juniper, special advisor to PRP and former director of Friends of the Earth. We’ll continue to dig into the forestry story next week. UPDATE: British delegate’s pro-logging stance prompts EU apology.
A pre-requisite for making the transition to a clean energy future is to switch subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy projects. If that’s the case, why are we still bank-rolling dirty energy projects in developing countries?
World Bank lending for fossil fuels rose by 94% between 2007 & 2008 to over $3 billion which far outweighs the $476 million they gave to “new renewables” energy projects. World Bank lending for coal in particular rose 256% from 2007 to 2008. This contradicts the Bank’s own rhetoric in their “World Development Report” published in September that advises against “locking the world into high-carbon infrastructure”.
Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International has been campaigning for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies for many years. He says that if the G20 leaders were serious about their Pittsburgh commitment to phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels, they could end World Bank and Export Credit Agency support at the stroke of a pen. However, rather than putting their own house in order first, there is a danger that the G20 could choose to focus on the the subsidies that developing countries use to make energy services affordable for the poor. If that’s the case, we still have a job to do in holding the G20 to account. Links & References
If the Waxman-Markey climate bill goes unchanged through the Senate, it could make an adequate and fair global deal on climate change impossible. The bill would allow new coal-fired power plants to be built up until 2020. It would also strip the Environmental Protection Agency of their existing authority to regulate coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act. It would replace this direct regulation with the widely-discredited Cap & Trade system. It has a very low level of ambition.
As 125 civil society groups from around the globe write to President Obama asking for US leadership on climate change, we chew over options for enhanced US action with our guest Daphne Wysham, presenter of Earthbeat Radio and founder and director of the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network.
