More than 60 organisations from around the world are calling for a carbon levy on fossil fuel extraction to help pay for the climate change impacts on the most vulnerable countries.

The Carbon Levy Project declaration argues that fossil fuel companies are causing approximately 70 per cent of the climate change experienced today.

As a result, these companies should have to help mobilise funds to provide compensation for the damage, it says. This would be done through a tax on extraction (as opposed to emissions) the declaration explains.

Renowned climate scientist Naomi Oreskes, author Naomi Klein, 350.org’s Bill McKibben, and Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo, along with Ronny Jumeau, the Seychelles Ambassador to the UN, and Yeb Sano of the Philippines, have all signed the declaration following this month’s historic Paris Agreement.

On December 12, the world agreed to keep global warming to “well below 2°C” with the aim of trying to keep the global average temperature increase to just 1.5°C.

However, even these temperature goals will not stop some climate impacts already being felt by the most climate-vulnerable nations.

“Vulnerable communities on the frontline of climate change are already suffering worse droughts, more intense storms, and their homes are already being encroached upon by rising sea levels. They are already suffering loss and damage from climate change,” reads the declaration.

Not only are fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change, but many of them have, for years, supported campaigns denying climate science, in order to slow government action.

The most prominent example is ExxonMobil, which is currently being investigated in New York for its climate denial efforts.

“These big oil, coal and gas companies are continuing to reap millions in profit, while the poor are paying with their lives.  While the Paris Agreement sends a strong signal that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground, on the way to that goal, these companies should be paying for the damage they’ve already caused,” said Julie Anne Richards of the Climate Justice Programme, campaigning for a carbon Levy.

She added: “We support work by allies on legal strategies to bring the fossil fuel industry to account for the damage their product is causing. And it is crucial to ensure that fossil fuels are phased out and replaced by renewable energy by mid-century.”

Photo: Wikimedia commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

If you’ve been watching headlines about the historic signing of the Paris Agreement this past weekend, you may be understandably confused.

Does the world’s first climate treaty represent the beginning of the end for fossil fuels or a mere free-market cop out?

Both arguments hold some truth. That’s because the agreement is more form, less substance. That’s what it was intended to be. The real meat of the deal remains entirely undetermined because it has yet to grow on the bones of the treaty.

What countries like Canada actually do to implement the intended outcome of the Paris Agreement — to keep temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions — will determine whether the torrent of analyses we’re seeing, dire or otherwise, have any merit.

“There’s this Buddhist idiom that says: first Enlightenment, then the laundry,” Glen Murray, Ontario’s Environment Minister, said at the climate summit in Paris. “This has been the Enlightenment and now we all have to go home and do the laundry to make sure this happens.”

Same Finish Line, Different Starting Lines

Ontario received praise in Paris for its complete phase out of coal-fired power plants in 2014 and Murray spent time advising other jurisdictions, including Alberta, how they could do the same.

Yet, Ontario’s bold climate move — more than 25 per cent of the province’s power previously came from coal — and Alberta’s new climate plan highlight just how disparate efforts to limit wildly different amounts and sources of emissions are from province-to-province.

According to Environment Canada, between 1990 and 2013 Canada’s absolute emissions increased by 18 per cent, primarily from the growth of fossil fuel industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. Emissions from the oil and gas sector are responsible for nearly one quarter of all national emissions.

During that time, Alberta’s provincial emissions grew by 53 per cent, Saskatchewan’s by 66 per cent, B.C.’s by 21 per cent and Manitoba’s by 14 per cent.

The absolute emissions of Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the territories all fell during this same period.

As the saying went in Paris, we’re all trying to get to the same finish line, but don’t all have the same starting line.

Feds Need to Implement Harmonized GHG Targets

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to meet with the premiers within 90 days of the Paris climate talks to discuss how Canada will move forward in a post-Paris Agreement world.

The federal government has promised both to work with the provinces but also to implement a pan-Canadian framework for addressing the country’s growing emissions profile.

According to Erin Flanagan, policy expert from the Pembina Institute, how the federal government will wrangle the provinces together under a national climate framework is still a complete mystery.

“In large part, the federal government has been highly cooperative and collaborative with provinces in these first few weeks,” Flanagan said, adding she doesn’t think Ottawa will be unfairly prescriptive when it comes to establishing a policy pathway.

“At the same time,” she said, “if Canada makes good on that commitment of a pan-Canadian framework within 90 days of Paris, one of the things they talked about is instituting harmonized targets.”

Tensions Likely to Emerge Between Provinces

Differing opinions on what that harmonized target should be and what each province must do to achieve it could mean troubled water between premiers and the federal government.

Flanagan said Alberta’s much celebrated climate action plan did not include specific emission reduction targets.

Alberta promised to phase out its 18 coal-fired power plants, introduce a carbon tax to match B.C.’s $30/tonne price to put a cap on oilsand’s emissions.

“But they didn’t frame any of that in terms of what Alberta should do to reduce its emission between now and 2030,” Flanagan said. “So there will be an additional conversation now about what Alberta’s contribution to a national target will be.

I think that’s where some of the challenges over the next little while will emerge.”

What steps the federal government might take if a province like Alberta fails to meet its targets will also form a part of that challenging conversation, Flanagan added.

B.C. is often celebrated for its climate leadership after instituting the country’s first carbon tax. Yet at the Paris climate talks, B.C. was on the hook for freezing that carbon tax back in 2012 and now working to build a carbon-heavy liquefied natural gas (LNG) empire.

“I don’t want to pick on the west too much,” Flanagan said, “but B.C. is a good example where you’ve got a world-winning carbon tax…but if you look at modeling coming out of that province they’re not likely to hit their 2020 or 2030 climate targets.”

“So how do you penalize a jurisdiction that has a carbon tax but isn’t doing enough to actually contribute nationally?”

“That’s going to be a tough one,” she said.

“As much as subnational climate action has been exciting — that’s the best climate story coming out of Canada right now — it does pose the risk of fragmentation. None of these conversations have been about what Canada’s emissions look like in a climate safe world. They’ve been about what it means for Ontario or Quebec or B.C. to be a climate leader.”

Living Up to Paris Agreement Means Quick Transition Off Fossil Fuels

Those are important conversations, but they need to be brought into the context of Canada’s contribution on the global stage.

If Canada is to do its fair share to keep global temperatures from increasing beyond 1.5 or even two degrees Celsius, it must reduce its emissions 80 per cent by 2050.

According to Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that charts a clear course for decarbonization.

“In order to live up to this deal we must, as a country, quickly transition off fossil fuels and usher into the renewable age,” he said. “This means saying no to tarsands pipelines and other carbon infrastructure.”

In Paris, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna avoided commenting on specific projects like the TransCanada Energy East pipeline, proposed to carry 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta to ports in New Brunswick.

“I don’t like just looking at one particular development,” McKenna said in Paris when asked about the climate impacts of Energy East. “We are looking at how we are going to make progress towards a low-carbon economy.”

Last month, President Barack Obama rejected the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, saying the project’s climate impacts were intolerable. Now many onlookers from within the climate movement are saying Canada should evaluate energy projects and infrastructure according to a similar “climate test.”

Feds May Have to Step in and Reject Projects

Critically, Canada’s position within a global context must be drawn into the national decision-making process, Flanagan said. This may mean rejecting oilsands projects, natural gas extraction or coal-fired power plants at the federal level.

Canada’s overall climate targets should not be up for negotiation with the provinces, Flanagan added.

“You let climate scientists at Environment Canada determine what that trajectory looks like and you then negotiate with the provinces how you share that burden,” she said.

“Ultimately if they want to achieve these goals they have to be bad cop and good cop — not just good cop.”

Image: Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The world collectively agreed to combat global warming with the signing of the first international climate treaty Saturday in Paris.

This is a historic moment. Breathe a sigh of relief everyone. This is good news.

It doesn’t mean the work is done — not by a long shot — and that’s surely something pundits, politicians, campaigners and scientists alike will go to great lengths to hammer home for the foreseeable future.

But it does mean that nearly 200 hundred countries have agreed to work together. What’s more, they’ve more or less agreed on the basis of science and that only came about after a monumental amount of time, energy, diplomacy, negotiation, steadfastness and compromise were all thrown into a giant airport hangar on the outskirts of Paris.

Such accomplishments are not come by lightly. This is as much an important victory for the climate as it is for international diplomacy. Way to go, world.

It sounded like this when it happened:

.@LaurentFabius: "I see there is no objection, #ParisAgreement is now adopted!" #COP21 pic.twitter.com/xDQ19b07Qn

— COP21en (@COP21en) December 12, 2015

We all know the vaaaaast majority of people will never take a gander at the actual text of the agreement. But it’s chock-a-block full of really important details that will determine how countries will move forward back home after they depart from the chic Charles de Gaulle airport.

Here are some key high- and lowlights, for your overviewing pleasure.

The 1.5 Goal Post

You’ve probably heard before that, according to scientists and policy makers, the world needs to prevent temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Well, there’s new science in which indicates that catastrophe-threshold is actually more like 1.5 degrees of warming. At least, that’s very much the case for low-lying island or Arctic nations where the effects of climate change are hitting first and hitting hard.

Heeding that new scientific research, more than 100 countries descended on Paris with a new, stronger goal in mind. These countries, mostly smaller nations, worked extremely hard over the last two weeks to bring big, wealthy nations into the 1.5 camp.

The final agreement doesn’t enforce that hard 1.5 line, but it commits nations to the aim of keeping temperatures to “well below 2C” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C.”

So, not the outcome many hoped for, but undoubtedly a step in the right direction and one that demonstrates some agility when it comes to adapting relatively quickly to what the science is saying.

Au Revoir, Fossil Fuels

The agreement also commits countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions and that means limiting the burning of fossil fuels.

A total of 186 countries submitted pledges in the lead-up to Paris that outline how they plan on reducing domestic emissions — usually through a combination of rules, market mechanisms (like carbon taxes or cap and trade), technologies like carbon capture and storage and new targets for renewable energy.

However, the current pledges are not nearly strong enough to meet the climate goal outlined in the agreement.

According to pledge reviewers, what those countries have collectively proposed puts us on track for nearly three degrees of warming.

The agreement includes a long-term emissions goal, to peak carbon emissions “as soon as possible” with the aim of achieving net-zero emissions after 2050. Yet how countries will achieve this isn’t proscribed in the agreement (which makes sense given every country will have to sketch out their own plan).

The agreement mentions the net-zero emissions target will ‘balance’ greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. Basically this provides opportunity for countries to continue to emit if they offset those emissions through, say, planting tress or using carbon capture and storage.

For more detail on just what ‘balance’ might mean, check out this great explainer of the text by Carbon Brief.

Countries to Strengthen Targets Every Five Years

One of the quagmire issues during the last two weeks of negotiations had to do with what’s called a ‘ratchet mechanism,' which addresses how countries will report on and strengthen their internal climate promises in a transparent way going forward.

The Paris agreement includes rules that require countries to renew their pledges every five years in an open process that ensures bad actors will be called out for not doing their fair share.

These five-year reviews, all countries agreed, should be done to keep pledges in line with the best available science. The start date for addressing this process is 2018 with a commitment to roll out new pledges and conduct reviews in 2023.

The review process is meant to be “facilitative, non-intrusive, non-punitive.”

How the Rich and Poor Will Work Together

Without getting to deep into the weeds here, another major issue the agreement had to address was how bloody expensive climate change is already because of losses (like Bangladesh literally loosing coastline) and damages (like flash floods from extreme weather events wreaking havoc in countries like India).

Poorer, developing nations — who aren’t responsible for much of the last century’s emissions — wanted wealthy, big polluting nations to help pay for some of these damages.

The agreement sets out in detail what developing countries can consider under a ‘loss and damage’ article.

But the deal stops short of holding rich countries liable for compensation to developing nations — something the United States and other countries said was an explicit no-go for them.

Financing the Clean Energy Revolution

It’s also super expensive to overhaul energy systems, if you’ve already got them, or to build them, if you haven’t.

The agreement commits rich countries to providing climate finance to poor countries and gives other, less well-off countries the option to pitch in.

Countries have until 2025 to figure out how they’re going to provide at least $100 billion to the Green Climate Fund, to help countries develop renewable energy resources, according to the agreement.

A number of promising coalitions were launched in Paris that demonstrate how this finance will be used. One of the most exciting initiatives is probably the African Renewable Energy Initiative that brought together more than $10 billion from developing countries to help the continent ‘leapfrog’ directly to renewable energy.

Tomorrow’s Work Remains

As the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said to world leaders this evening in Paris, “We have an agreement. It is a good agreement. You should all be proud.”

“Now we must stay united — and bring the same spirit to the crucial test of implementation,” he said. 

“That work starts tomorrow.”

Image: Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

BY KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

An historic deal to limit global warming to “well below 2C” and to make every effort to keep temperate increase to 1.5C will be agreed by 195 nations today in Paris.

The Paris Agreement will be ambitious, differentiated and legally binding, with five year review mechanisms to scale up efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

French President Francois Hollande said: “It is rare in a lifetime to have the opportunity to change the world. You have this opportunity so that our planet can live a long time, so that we can live a long time.”

After two weeks of continuous, intense negotiations, often going well into the night, the atmosphere in the plenary room this morning was positive and hopeful.

 “The text is ambitious but it’s also realistic,” Hollande described, noting that it must be viewed in a global context and not read through the lens of individual interests.

“This is something that is unprecedented in the history of climate negotiations,” he said. “This will be a major leap for mankind.”  

End Of Fossil Fuel Era

The Paris Agreement will not just be historic because it is the first of its kind but also because it signals the death-knell for fossil fuels with the language firmly grounded in science.

Laurent Fabius, the French COP21 president, said when opening the plenary on December 12: “We are almost at the end of the path and no doubt embarking upon another.”

“The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become the business of all,” he asserted.

In July, Hollande emphasised the need to keep 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to achieve a “viable” global climate deal here in Paris.

Adopting a global warming target of 2C above pre-industrial levels – as the world seems poised to do today – will enable the final transition away from fossil fuels the President of France said.

And in fact, while this COP21 was underway in Paris there was news that global greenhouse gas emissions have peaked and are now falling. With a new, strong treaty signed perhaps this trend will continue.

Reacting to the Paris Agreement, Greenpeace's Kumi Naidoo said: “The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history."

Ban Ki-Moon, head of the United Nations, said today: “[The deal] promises to set the world on a new path to a low emissions, climate resilient future.”

“We have to do what science dictates. We must protect the planet that sustains us,” he continued. “The solutions to climate change are on the table, they are ours for the taking now. Let us have the courage to grasp them.”

Civil Society Responds

Meanwhile in central Paris, activists gathered to call for stronger climate action. Many remain critical of the Paris Agreement and emphasised that governments must now turn words into action.

Noel Douglas, 45, a artist and designer from Peckham in London, was among the thousands of demonstrators who assembled close to the Arc de Triomphe and under the Eiffel Tower. Protesters voiced anger human rights were removed from the text and feared the ambition of holding climate change to 1.5 degrees would not be met. One leader vowed to occupy coal mines in Germany next year. 

He said: “We were not expecting the agreement to solve the problem of a living planet and a future for us all. So now we need to find ways to bring more people into the climate justice movement and prepare for bigger battles ahead. We cannot trust corporations and the establishment to stop climate change.”

“This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep," said Naidoo. "To pull us free of fossil fuels we are going to need to mobilise in ever greater numbers… For us, Paris was always a stop on an ongoing journey. Ultimately our fate will be decided over the coming decades by the collective courage of our species. I believe we will succeed.”

Photos: Brendan Montague

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

History was made tonight in Paris as the leaders of 195 nations agreed to an ambitious, science-based pact to move the world away from the fossil fuels that are to blame for the rapid increase in global temperatures.

After two weeks of negotiations here in the airport hangars of Le Bourget, 195 parties have signed a global pact that will curb global warming pollution and rapidly escalate the growth of the clean energy solutions the world needs.

The consensus here is that the Paris deal on the table is a good one. Could it be better? Of course. But this deal is about as good as it is going to get from a consensus process involving 195 countries.

The reduction targets in the plan are in line with what scientists say needs to happen, and most importantly this deal strikes a balance between what has to happen to avoid the most calamitous impacts of climate change, with the realties faced by developing nations that do not have the resources to go it alone in reducing fossil fuel consumption.

On a personal note, having now been involved in this UN negotiating process in various capacities for close to a decade, I have to say that this is truly an historic day for humanity.

It has been a very long road that started long before these talks here in Paris.

The Long History of Climate Negotiations

While this official UN process began 21 years ago, it was in 1988 when a panel of scientists was struck called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), bringing together everything we knew about climate change in a series of papers that would serve as the justification for a global treaty on greenhouse gas emissions. Over the coming years, the IPCC would issue reports on the state of climate science that grew more certain in their conclusions and more dire in their predictions.

The same year the IPCC was formed, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen stood in front of a U.S. Senate committee and warned the government that climate change was real, it was serious and that we humans were to blame — chiefly due to the burning of fossil fuels.  

After three years of further negotiation, a really important first global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was adopted in Kyoto, Japan. The treaty was the Kyoto Protocol and for many it was an historical moment as the world's first attempt to end the age of fossil fuels. It was also about that time that the climate "deniers" movement began. Fossil fuel companies, mainly in the coal and oil sectors, began pumping millions of dollars into think tanks and PR agencies to deny and delay action on climate change.

It was an awful point in our history. Looking back on it on this historic day in Paris, I realize there remains work to be done on the climate denial movement. Fossil fuel companies and the people they funded must and will be held to account. 

Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol, which after further negotiations was ratified and brought into force in 2005, did not do what it was supposed to do as we continued to see the world use greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels as the main driver of everyday life and economic prosperity.

It was also in 2005 that DeSmogBlog was created. Our founders recognized the need to take on the climate denier movement and expose the fossil fuel funding and media manipulation tactics used to delay action on climate change.

Soon it was made clear that while politicians were starting to say the right things, there was not enough happening on the policy front in capitals worldwide.

The Kyoto Protocol was failing. But public concern was rising, the science was getting stronger and there was a burgeoning global renewable energy sector. It appeared that despite a failing UN treaty process, the world was beginning to wake up.

In fact, while this COP 21 was underway here in Paris there was news that global greenhouse gas emissions have peaked and are now falling. With a new, strong treaty now signed, let's hope we see that trend continue.

With the Kyoto Protocol expiration date approaching and greenhouse gas emissions still on the rise, a new agreement was planned to be negotiated and ratified in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Despite massive hype and global media attention, world leaders failed in Copenhagen to agree to a new plan to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. I remember many tears at this event, with most attendees going home with a feeling of hopelessness. Copenhagen was a hard hit for those (including myself) who had really thought the moment had come for a real deal.

However, after the tears had dried and sorrows were drowned in various beverages, there was a growing feeling of urgency.

While for the next five years countries met annually at the Conference of the Parties, it was becoming clear that the things scientists like Dr. James Hansen had warned us about so many years ago were beginning to come true. Extreme weather events around the world, from "super" typhoons, to unrelenting heat waves, droughts and famine in the horn of Africa, to devastating hurricanes wiping out coastal towns, Mother Nature was doing its part in communicating that the clock was ticking.

Finally, here we are in Paris. Finally there is a global treaty in place that is ambitious, fair and sends the right signal out into the world.

Finally we have begun to end the age of fossil fuels. The stage is set, the lights are all in place and the curtain has now gone up on a new stage of human history. Will this all go perfectly to plan? Of course it won't, we humans are amazingly good at making things difficult.

But for right now, it is time to celebrate that regardless of all the horrible things going on around the world, we are still able to come together and accomplish what needs to get done. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada joined a powerful new negotiating bloc of countries coordinating a push for a strong, legally binding climate agreement at the Paris COP21 negotiations.

This week Canada joined the High Ambition Coalition of both rich and poor countries after entering into dialogue with the EU to learn more about the initiative, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna’s office told DeSmog Canada.

The Coalition, which the Guardian first reported has been meeting in secret for six months, includes 79 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific as well as the EU and the U.S., which joined the group on Tuesday. News is just breaking that Brazil has also joined the illustrious group.

Within the negotiations the Coalition is calling for a clear long-term temperature goal in the Paris climate treaty, as well as strong review rules and a system for keeping track of how well nations are meeting their climate targets.

Canada’s allegiance to the ambitious group comes at a critical time, as lead negotiators are working around the clock to finalize an agreement that will set the agenda for international climate policy for years, even decades, to come. It’s the final countdown.

"I am encouraged by the continued progress we made overnight,” McKenna said in a statement released to media. “We're seeing good cooperation around the table on many of the issues Canada has pushed for throughout the negotiations; for instance the commitment to ratcheting up our ambition every five years, and to transparency in each country's reporting process. These are crucial to our long-term success.”

McKenna added the draft text negotiators are working to finalize includes both a reference to keeping global temperatures to “well below two degrees Celsius” as well as “pursuing efforts to limit increase to 1.5 degrees.”

On the opening day of the Paris negotiations over 100 countries, including several groups of small island nations, called on negotiators to craft an agreement that would align with new science that indicates a temperature increase of above 1.5 degrees could spell disaster for low lying island nations.

“Canada has advocated for this recognition of the urgency of the threat to small-island states, like the Marshall Islands with whom we now stand as part of the High Ambition Coalition,” McKenna said. “The Coalition brings together developed and developing countries from around the world as we lay the groundwork for a safe climate future.”

McKenna, who is one of 14 international ministers tasked with facilitating the negotiations, added Canada continues to advocate for the inclusion of human and indigenous rights in the agreement.

“We're entering the home stretch now,” she said. “I am hopeful the final days and hours will see all parties with me at the table and working together to conclude this agreement. And that this agreement will become a new pathway to a greener economy and a cleaner planet."

Image: Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It's crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C degree target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Policy Framework

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them."

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995.

He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing. 

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments,” Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

The Industry's Future

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65 per cent of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals… The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself… [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

He continued: “If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view,” she continued, “the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty… the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Photo: UN Climate Change via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Alberta Minister of Environment Shannon Phillips says her province is being celebrated on the international stage for its climate leadership.

“Alberta has put in place a robust set of policies and we are now leaders in the country and on the continent in terms of action,” she told reporters in Paris on Wednesday.

The province of Alberta is participating in the Canadian delegation to the Paris climate talks alongside many other provinces including B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Philips says when it comes to its international reputation, Alberta has “turned the page.”

She added Alberta’s positive reception in Paris can be attributed to the new NDP government’s change in tone.

“We’ve demonstrated that it can be done: that rational, drama-free conversations as energy producers can be had and that leadership can come out of that.”

Last month Alberta announced a new climate plan that places an absolute cap on oilsands emissions, the phase-out of 18 coal-fired power plants and the establishment of a province-wide $30 per tonne carbon tax.

Creation of the plan brought together a broad range of environmental organizations and industry representatives. At the plan’s unveiling, Premier Rachel Notley was flanked by oil executives from some of Alberta’s top producing companies as well as members of the environmental movement.

“We’ve had broad recognition that Alberta needed to change how it approaches these matters,” Phillips said.

“The policies that preceded us at both the provincial and federal level…were mistaken.”

Phillips said Alberta’s new approach has opened the province up to more frank discussions with international trading partners.

She said new leadership “allows us to walk into the economy of the future instead of turning our back on all of that investment and economic growth that is very clearly on the horizon for the entire planet.”

At the COP21 climate talks in Paris nearly 200 countries are aiming to deliver an internationally binding climate agreement that will mandate the eventual decarbonization of the world's economy.

Alberta to Remain Oil-Producing Province

Phillips was quick to add that Alberta will not stop producing oil any time soon.

“Everyone understands that Alberta is in a unique position,” she said. “Everyone equally understands that Alberta has taken a leadership role and we are willing to work collaboratively with everyone in the Canadian federation and the federal government to ensure Canada does its fair share.”

On Tuesday Phillips said federal ministers are responsible for deciding Canada’s climate commitments within the internationally binding agreement currently being negotiated in Paris.

She told reporters Alberta has done enough to strengthen its provincial climate plan. “We have taken our share of responsibility.”

Canada’s current climate commitment, developed under the former Conservative government, requires a 30 per cent reduction in 2005 level emissions by 2030.

However, in Paris, Canada’s government has come out in support of stronger climate targets, which aim to prevent global temperatures from increasing above 1.5 degress Celsius. The current target, used in previous climate negotiations, requires countries to keep temperatures from rising two degrees.

When pressed on Alberta’s contribution to Canada’s rising greenhouse gas emissions, Phillips said an oilsands cap of 100 megatones of emissions is “appropriate” for “a heavy oil producer that powers the rest of the Canadian economy.”

Alberta Climate Plan Not Yet Implemented

She added her government has yet to implement the policies outlined in the new climate plan.

“We’ve put forward a very robust policy architecture that we’re very proud of,” she said. “Our job is to execute that.”

She added a change in investment priorities, with new efforts being made to support clean tech and renewables, will also influence Alberta’s emissions output.

Phillips also said her party campaigned with a promise to “implement the principles and guiding philosophies of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

“We’re serious about those matters,” she said, adding a more collaborative and engaged approach with First Nations can play a role in the implementation of those principles.

“This is the beginning of a conversation about how we are going to move forward in Alberta,” Phillips said.

“We are six, seven months into our mandate and we’re talking about 35-year timelines here,” she said. “A lot can change in that time.”

“What we have done is put in place a set of policies that will allow us to lead and allow us to reduce our emissions.” 

Image: Facebook

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The issue of loss and damage has emerged as one of the top issues for negotiators at the Paris climate talks.

Swedish and Bolivian ministers have been leading the discussions on loss and damage, trying to iron out the issues.

But big polluters and wealthy nations refuse to be held liable for compensating climate-vulnerable nations for future impacts of climate change.

So what exactly does ‘loss and damage’ mean and why is everyone talking about it? And most critically, will we see a deal that everyone can agree to by the end of the week?

What is loss and damage?

There are some impacts of climate change to which it will not be possible to adapt – instead, we will be faced with residual ‘loss and damage’. This is when the efforts to try and mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change are not enough. Examples include Peoples and communities obliged to leave their countries and homes permanently; or the losses associated with destroyed ecosystems.

Those countries facing such impacts argue that there should be a specific stream of work to deal with them, referenced within the Paris agreement. Resistance comes from big polluters, who fear that establishing such provisions will open the door to future compensation claims.

So what’s the status of loss and damage going into the second week?

For small island states and some of the least developed countries, the question of loss and damage has become one of the most important aspects of the climate negotiations.

Tied into this discussion are other key elements of the Paris deal including climate finance for mitigation and adaptation as well as trying to keep the mention of an ambitious 1.5C global warming target in the text. The logic is that, if addressed, these issues on ambition and finance would mean countries hopefully wouldn’t suffer as much loss and damage.

At the end of the first week of climate negotiations one of the key issues was where loss and damage will be placed in the Paris package.

Developing countries want it in the binding agreement that is expected to form the core of this package. But some rich nations have been pushing for it to be included in a set of accompanying decisions that will not have legal force.

In a recent version of the text submitted on Saturday December 5th there were two proposals laid out for loss and damage.

The first option, proposed by the G77 – which has been described as a strong proposal – outlines a process mechanism for how to deal with issues such as displacement as well as permanent and irreversible loss and damage.

The second option is weaker “but if we have [both] on the table they’re both good to move forward on” described Julie-Anne Richards, international policy manager at Climate Justice Programme.

Sven Harmeling, CARE International’s climate change advocacy coordinator, described the text as “something technically manageable” adding that there have been improvements throughout the first week.

The issue of loss and damage has in the past provoked heated arguments and walkouts at previous conferences. For example, at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013, discussions over the issue broke down and the poorer countries walked out. An international mechanism on Loss and Damage did however emerge out of the Warsaw talks and it’s hoped this will be included in the Paris deal in some way.

“In terms of substance, this proposal would put the Warsaw international mechanism more at the centre and not establish a new one… It would provide a framework for going forward without defining what exactly needs to happen,” Harmeling explained. “If parties start to engage on that basis then I’m more optimistic we’ll get something useful.”

So what do the wealthy nations think?

The idea that developed nations bear a responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations for those extreme climate events which they cannot adapt to is very controversial for wealthier nations.

Many such as the US and EU are concerned that if liability and compensation were linked to this, it could become a massive legal and financial headache.

Both the UK and US have confirmed here in Paris that they will not accept the notion of ‘compensation and liability’ to be included in a climate deal

However, as with the nature of negotiations, compromises are struck. Ahead of the Paris summit, developing nations agreed to drop contentious words like compensation and liability. “The idea was to engage very constructively,” said Harjeet Singh of ActionAid.

This helped Washington and the European Union to recognise the importance of including loss and damage in the outcome of the Paris talks – but how to do that remains a sticking point.

Todd Stern, US special envoy on climate change, told reporters in Paris last week that the US accepts the concerns of vulnerable nations on this issue.

“We’re a supporter of dealing with loss and damage in an effective way,” he said. “We are working in a very co-operative and constructive way right with both the islands and the G77 on developing an outcome and a solution here, there are many players in this but we have been very engaged on this issue.”

“There’s one thing we don’t accept and won’t accept in this agreement,” he added, “and that’s the notion that there should be liability and compensation for loss and damage. In that regard we’re in the exact same place as virtually all developed countries.”

What can we expect going forward?

As the second week progresses many are optimistic that loss and damage will be inserted in the main body of the agreement.

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the “landing ground” as “some reference in the core agreement so it’s clear this is a core part of the agreement going forward.”

Meyer added that there is also a process underway to get the Warsaw mechanism reviewed and expanded upon during the next COP22 meeting in Morocco 2016.

Given that the issue of loss and damage is “younger” compared to discussions on mitigation and adaptation as E3G describes, any mention in the text is likely to be “brief and to the point”.

But we’re “at a very very critical moment” warned ActionAid’s Singh on the morning of Tuesday December 8. “This is a real life issue it is not a bargaining chip.”

Singh criticised the US for bringing the issue of ‘compensation’ back into the discussions after developing countries agreed to let that go in September.

“We don’t have time for any bargaining tricks, he said, adding it’s time to “engage really meaningfully” on issues such as displacement and permanent loss and damage.

“We’ve seen the Syrian refugee crisis and we have heard how it was [partly] fuelled by climate change. That was just a preview. We are going to see a lot more such realities and we need to prepare for that.”

Maina Talia, part of Vaitupu Island Youth and Tuvalu CAN emphasised the existential risk faced by the most vulnerable nations whose land is being devoured by the sea.

“I want to stress the connection between us and the land,” he said at a side-event in Paris. “There is a concept back home called ‘Fanua’. That same word we give to the land is the same word we give to the placenta to a mother.”

“If you give birth on the island we bury the fanua and plant a coconut tree on top signifying our connectivity to the land…this is how important it is for us not to go, not to leave…because we are connected, we are rooted to the land.”

“If we are to leave Tuvalu, it will become very different for a nation like Tuvalu to exist within another nation.”

He continued: “The loss of cultural heritage for us simply equals to death…losing someone’s culture and losing someone’s tradition simply equals to death.”

This post also appears on Energydesk.

Photo: UNESCO Jakarta via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A new index of global emissions released Tuesday at the Paris climate talks finds Canada among the worst performing nations when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy.

Canada, taking sixth place, ranked only above Korea, Japan, Australia, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia in the 2016 Climate Change Performance Index.

Even though Canada’s position remains low, it represents a slight improvement from last year, when the country came in last out of 58 nations profiled in a 2014-2015 report.

This year’s index report notes a “slight positive trend can be seen in Canada, which improved its performance by two places.”

But report, produced every year for the last 11 years by Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, attributes the majority of Canada’s improvement to the work of the provinces and acknowledges that no visible efforts to improve Canada’s climate standing have been made at the federal level in recent years.

The slight increase in Canada’s standing is due to early indication from the Liberal government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canada will be a more constructive player on the international climate stage.

The report analyzes emission levels, future projections, energy intensity, deployment of renewable energy as well as climate policy for each of the countries.

“The new government has already announced increased efforts regarding climate policies, which was rewarded in Canada’s policy evaluation where it climbed 12 places,” the report states.

No countries were successful enough in their climate action to be listed in the top three position. Denmark was ranked highest above all countries in fourth place, followed by the U.K., Sweden, Belgium and France. 

Countries ranked according to their climate performance in the Climate Change Performance Index. Click image to go to report.

World is Decarbonizing

"We see global trends, indicating promising shifts in some of the most relevant sectors for climate protection and important steps towards a transformation of the energy system,” Jan Burck, from Germanwatch and author of the index, said.

He added the overall energy intensity of the world’s economy is on a downturn.

“The years 2013 and 2014 saw for the first time a higher amount of newly installed capacity from renewables than from all other energy sources combined; indicating that many countries have already started decarbonising their energy sector.”

“In the next years, it will be crucial to decarbonise the energy sector on a global scale,” Burck said.

Nations Hammering Out Plan to Eliminate Fossil Fuels in Paris

Countries are working hard to produce a major climate treaty at the COP21 Paris climate negotiations by Friday.

The goal of the treaty is to limit future warming to catastrophic levels. New efforts are being made to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, a stronger target than the current limit of two degrees.

Countries are currently in high-level deliberations, working on the draft text of an agreement that addresses the world’s need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by around mid-century.

Canada has come out in support of pursing the stronger 1.5 degree target as well as supporting a legally binding agreement that includes a regular review of countries’ emissions and emission reduction efforts.

Trudeau has promised to meet with provincial premiers 90 days after the end of the climate talks to discuss a pan-Canadian framework for addressing Canada’s emissions. A new Liberal government climate plan is expected to be released around April of 2016. 

Sidney Ribaux, co-founder of Équiterre, said Canada has so far been strong on human and indigenous rights.

“We want to see them maintain that position,” Ribaux said at the climate talks in Paris.

“I would like to have seen Canada come out with some language around the 2050 [decarbonization] argument. So far we haven’t seen anything from them.”

An absence of strong, clear long-term climate targets creates an uncertain context for both businesses and other jurisdictions of government, Ribaux said, adding he hoped Canada would announce new climate goals in Paris.

“It would have sent a good message, both domestically and internationally, to have released that here.” 

Image: Kris Krug

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Professional climate science deniers and delayers have been busy playing the victim card here at the Paris climate change talks.

As we head into the guts of week two, negotiators at the vast Le Bourget venue are heading into the business end of agreeing a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

In The Australian, environment editor Graham Lloyd wrote under the headline “Greens want muzzle on ‘climate deniers’” how environment groups wanted “alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris.”

That’s an interesting choice of phrase – alternative view. Try, wrong. There are some people in the world with an “alternative view” on the age and the shape of the planet, or the theory of evolution and the safety of vaccines.

But you wouldn’t expect them to be taken seriously at a major medical conference or the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Reuters also had a story where Heartland Institute communications director Jim Lakely complained that they had to “make their own space and time” to be heard in Paris.  Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow's Marc Morano complained to Politico that the UN saw the denialists as the "turd in the punch bowl".

The Heartland Institute, which received $736,000 from Exxon between 1998 and 2006, is ever keen to promote climate science denial, holding annual conferences in the US and abroad, launching “alternative” climate reports and comparing anyone who accepts climate science to tyrants and murderers.

So are climate science denialists and “sceptics” really excluded from the United Nations climate process? 

The Committee for Constructive Tomorrow has been granted official press conference time and space at previous climate talks in Lima, Warsaw, Durban, Doha and Bonn. 

CFACT communications director Marc Morano, who launched his Climate Hustle denialist documentary in Paris on Tuesday evening, told me they have a press conference planned within the Paris talks, in an official room, for later this week. CFACT has also had an official booth at the Paris talks.

The United Nations has also granted official delegate status to representatives from CFACT and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another US conservative think tank that refuses to accept the evidence of the severe implications of fossil fuel emissions.

Yet while the likes of CFACT and Heartland cry wolf over their victim status, there’s an apparent hypocrisy in their claims.

When CFACT joined other groups in a room at the aptly-titled Hotel California (as the Eagles sang, ‘what a nice surprise, bring your alibis’) for a day of denialist speeches, the event was initially advertised as being public.

But when journalists from DeSmog turned up, the event suddenly became private and the journalists were excluded.

I had initially been granted a seat for the premiere of the Climate Hustle documentary, but was later declined.  At the screening event last night (more information about that quite bizarre experience to come), I asked again to be allowed in, but was told it was full. 

Dr John Cook, a climate communication fellow at the University of Queensland and founder of the SkepticalScience website, was also told he wouldn’t be allowed to actually watch the film, after initially expecting to be allowed in.

The ideologically-motivated climate science denial that Heartland and CFACT promotes cuts no ice here inside the Paris talks. But that’s not to say it has no impact.

Writing in the New Republic, Jonathan Katz points out how the Republican party’s denial of the science in the US could impact on the negotiations. Negotiators, Katz argues, “know better than anyone that the Republican Congress will not approve any climate change deal President Barack Obama puts in front of them.”  

Blog Image: Professional climate science denialists in Paris at the premiere of Climate Hustle. From left to right, Marc Morano, Tom Harris, Craig Rucker, Christopher Monckton, [Teddy Bear?], Bob Carter, Christopher Essex, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Moore.  Photo Credit: Brendan Montague

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.