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.

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.  

Then in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June of 1992, the Earth Summit was held and the first negotiations began on a global treaty, officially called the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Two years after the Rio Earth Summit, the UNFCCC was signed by 196 parties and brought into force — these 196 parties (195 States and 1 regional economic integration organization) have met every year since then and are commonly referred to as the Conference of the Parties (COP).

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.

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.

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.

Accredited journalists were kicked out of a sparsely attended climate denial conference hosted by the US oil-and tobacco-funded Heartland Institute today in Paris.

Heartland's ‘Day of Examining the Data’ event was repeatedly advertised as open to the public and media. However the freedom-of-speech espousing think tank had French security guards from the Hotel California outside the COP21 official venue remove DeSmog UK journalists.

Why? Because the 9 am press conference was now apparently a private event.

An archived copy of the Heartland Institute Website shows the conference advertised as "open to the public"

With the two DeSmog journalists gone, this left the likes of Marc Morano from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Christopher Monckton preaching to a small choir of under 30 people, the majority of which were elderly men. Ironically, tomorrow is gender day at the official Paris COP21 climate conference.

The formerly open to the public Heartland climate denial conference just cut number of women present by a third pic.twitter.com/8uUZzRDcyu

— Kyla Mandel (@kylamandel) December 7, 2015

This isn’t the first time such a climate denial conference has been underwhelming.

Last April, Heartland and CFACT travelled to Rome to try and pursuade the Pope not to speak on climate change. Aside from a very minimal media presence at the first day of their press stunt, there was no one except the climate denial faithful on day 2.

It also isn’t the first time for this group to refuse journalists entry to their events. In June, accredited journalists were barred from attending Heartland’s annual climate conference — and the media that did get in was cordoned off in a separate room unable to actually stand in the conference hall.

Sources tell DeSmog UK that Jim Lakely, Heartland’s communications director, is now standing guard outside the locked doors of the CFACT-Heartland climate denial conference in Paris.

This comes after The Australian published a story earlier today headlined “Greens want muzzle on ‘climate deniers’”.

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 BRENDAN MONTAGUE AND KYLA MANDEL IN PARIS

Coral Bleach, from the Billionaire United Mining Services, arrived this morning at the Heartland Institute's much vaunted Day of Examining Data repleat with an emerald-studed hard hat, high-viz jacket, and furs. But her excitement soon turned to dissapointment.

The fearless champions of freedom of speech at the Chicago-based free market think tank were quick to call the security at the California Hotel in Paris – and two undercover police officers touting walky-talkies were not far behind.

For Ms Bleach was a fraud, a prankster, a troublemaker – of the most curteous and humourous kind. Deborah Hart, 45, from Australia is co-founder of the ClimActs protest group and author of the popular children's book on climate, Guarding Eden.

She was protesting the Heartland Institute press event with activists from the Climate Games because of concerns that the oil and tobacco funded think tank was successfully spreading disinformation about climate science.

"We use satire because that is the most effective form of straight talking," she told DeSmog UK. "They are misleading and deceptive and well funded. They are extremely effective. They have industry behind them, and the Australian media behind them."

Extremely Disingenuous

She added: "This small group of people are extremely disingenuous and evil."

Jonathan Adams, 25, from Minneapolis in Minnesota, is an activist from Rising Tide North America. He attended the Heartland event briefly before being ushered out by security.

He asked the Heartland staffers whether they really believed that 97 percent of the world's scientists were lying about their research, and challenged whether white, older, wealthy Americans should be telling people in Africa how to run their countries.

"We were asked to behave. People were telling us we were being childish, that we were behaving like five-year-olds. And then we were pushed out."

Sam Castro, 45, a full time activist and mother of three from Australia was performing Greg Hunt – the "minister for killing everything."

She said: "The Heartland Institute in the US work closely with the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia. There is no way they can meet in Paris without being challenged. This is our children's future.

"These people are producing anti-science propaganda and this is used by the Australian government to justify inaction."

The Heartland press conference was advertised as open to the public but DeSmog UK reporters were told to leave before the event had even begun.

Jim Lakely, the hapless press officer, explained the ban was in place because the reporters had distributed printed materials at an earlier event in Rome.

After the banned press and public left there were just two women in attendance prior to the event starting. 

The formerly open to the public Heartland climate denial conference just cut number of women present by a third pic.twitter.com/8uUZzRDcyu

— Kyla Mandel (@kylamandel) December 7, 2015

Will Morano be arrested for being 'Climate Criminal' in Paris?! Movie premiere set for tonight! pic.twitter.com/LSKyaqfpzJ

— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) December 7, 2015

Wanted posters with the faces of Heartland attendees Myron Ebell and Chris Horner had been pasted outside the hotel. 

Among those due to give presentations at the Paris event were Dr Willie Soon, who has been funded by ExxonMobil for decades; Dr S Fred Singer, the grandfather of climate denial who shilled for the tobacco industry, and Ebell from the ExxonMobil-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Lord Christopher Monckton was also in attendance. Last week he explained his theory to DeSmog UK that Barack Obama was among a group of "totalitarians" who were trying to use the UNFCCC climate talks as a mechanism to install a Communist-Fascist State. 

@brendanmontague

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

Oil rich Saudi Arabia is leading a campaign to sabotage attempts by countries on the front line of climate change to include an ambitous 1.5C target for global warming in the COP21 agreement currently being negotiated in Paris. 

Wealthy nations – including Germany, France and now the United States – have all signalled support for including references to the lower target in the final text, as negotiators reach the end of the first week of negotiations.

The oil producing giant last night blocked efforts to include references in the Paris deal to a UN report that says it would be better to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels rather than the current 2C target.

Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate and Development, argues that the difference between a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees and two degrees “is roughly 1.5 million people who will fall through the cracks and most of them will be in vulnerable and developing countries.”

Thoriq Ibrahim, the Maldives envoy and chair of the alliance of small island states (AOSIS), said the 1.5C was a “moral threshold” for his country.

Arab Block

Emmanuel de Guzman, head of the Philippines delegation, said: “The momentum for raising the level of ambition in Paris now opens the exciting possibility for a truly historic and transformational summit. We salute France and Germany and call for more countries to join in the call for 1.5C to protect human rights globally.”

Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, told reporters today that concerns raised by island nations over passing a 1.5C global warming temperature rise threshold are “legitimate”.

“We are in active discussions with the islands and others about finding some way to represent their interests in having 1.5C referenced [in the Paris text] in some way,” Stern said. “We haven’t landed anywhere yet but we hear the concerns of those countries and we think these concerns are legitimate.”

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also come out in favour of a strong target. When asked about the 2C target today at the COP21 conference, Bloomberg said: “I don’t know if that’s the right target. The target should be zero [emissions] or reducing.”

But Saudi Arabia is now being accused of prioritising its oil-based economy over the survival of vulnerable nations. This goes efforts by a coalition of vulnerable countries to push the global community to adopt a new 1.5 degree global warming target.

The Climate Action Network tonight named Saudi Arabia "Fossil of the Day". A spokesman said: "The Saudi delegation here in Paris is doing its best to keep a meaningful mention of the 1.5 degree global warming limit out of the agreement. 

"The Saudi’s are trying to torpedo three years of hard science, commissioned by governments, that clearly shows 2 degrees warming is too much for vulnerable communities around the world. Saudi Arabia is fighting tooth and nail to ensure the Paris agreement basically says, 'thanks, but no thanks' to 1.5 degrees warming."

Substantive Discussions

Sven Harmeling, CARE International’s climate change advocacy coordinator, explained: “Saudi Arabia is blocking these very substantive discussions going forward and [from] allowing ministers to understand what’s going forward.”

"Overall we see increasing support for including the 1.5 limit in the Paris Agreement, with more than 110 countries in support, although some countries see it only in connection to below 2 degrees language. That adds pressure to those who see their fossil future threatened by a truly ambitious target," Harmeling told DeSmog UK.

"However, Saudi Arabia may also want to use this to bargain on other issues which the vulnerable countries might not, e.g. in relation to other issues of the mitigation ambition package (such as long-term emission reduction goal), or response measures which is about the impacts of emission reduction i.e. reduction of fossil fuel consumption."

Meanwhile, OPEC oil producing countries are also attempting to block language on turning economies away from fossil fuels – something generally agreed by everyone else in the negotiations.

Saudi Arabia is the 13th richest country in the world yet it refuses to make any financial contribution to the fight against climate change – this is despite claims to represent the poorest developing nations and support the end of fossil fuels.

In contrast, countries with smaller economies than Saudi Arabia – including the UK, EU, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden and Germany – have already contributed climate finance and will continue to do so.

King Salman bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi leader, did not speak at the COP21 opening on Monday. But Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, the Saudi Minister of Oil, has said: “In Saudi Arabia, we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we are not going to need fossil fuels. I don’t know when, in 2040, 2050 or thereafter.

“The kingdom [plans] to become a ‘global power in solar and wind energy’ and could start exporting electricity instead of fossil fuels in coming years."

Saudi Arabia says it will make some investment in renewables and slowly reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. The country is the world’s 10th largest CO2 emitter – more than the UK, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and France – and it has failed to make any emission reduction pledge.

What's more, there is a strong caveat within Saudi's climate pledge, which points out the country still relies on a “robust contribution from oil export revenues to the national economy”. 

Saudi is also looking to water down language about aligning broader financial flows to be compatible with climate objectives – ensuring that revenues raised by oil do not go back into polluting investments – which will be essential if there is to be a managed and orderly clean economic transition.

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

French energy giant Engie is perhaps the most prominent and most promoted corporate sponsor of the COP21 climate talks in Paris.

Engie, formerly known as GDF Suez, can be seen everywhere from the launch of India’s Solar Alliance on Monday to a ‘wind tree’ outside the COP21 venue at Le Bourget and the white lock-boxes spread throughout the halls where attendees can charge their devices.

And today the company will lead the charge at the opening of Solutions COP21 where corporates are gathering in central Paris to promote their various climate solutions. Here, Engie will be discussing opportunities for start-ups as well as showcasing a solar-powered race car and an air purifying robot.

But as the energy giant continues to boast of its COP21 sponsorship, DeSmog UK takes a closer look at its climate track record.

Energy Lobbying

Engie is one of France’s two largest electricity and gas providers (the other being EDF) and the French government owns 33 percent of the company.

According to the EU transparency register Engie spent between €2.25 million and €2.49 million in 2014 lobbying the European Commission on energy and the environment.

The company is also a member of BUSINESSEUROPE – an umbrella lobby organisation that is notorious for trying to weaken environmental and climate policies. In fact, just yesterday on December 3 the lobby group held a seven hour meeting in the EU Commission headquarters between Jean-Claude Junker, head of the commission, and several big energy companies.

It is no surprise then that Engie’s chief executive Gérard Mestrallet frequently appears at official events here at the climate summit.

As Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory explained: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“This is particularly the case in the energy sector,” he continued. “The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF.”

In September for example Mestrallet spoke alongside French President Holland at a pre-COP21 event. And then in November Engie celebrated the launch of internal discussions  to discuss ‘climate and energy’ with French environment minister Ségolène Royal.

As the company’s website reads: “Under the discussions, ENGIE employees will express their views on key points to be taken up at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP21) climate talk event.”

Over the course of the two weeks at COP21 Mastrallet will also be speaking on issues such as access to energy in Africa and on the Paris deal itself.

But as a report released this week shows, Engie has a poor track record in reporting its greenhouse gas emission transparently and taking into account emissions along its value chain – from sourcing raw materials to waste disposal.

Corporate Sway

Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth International addressed a press conference about corporate influence at the climate summit.

He told DeSmog UK: “Of course we recognise in terms of tackling the climate crisis we need all sectors to play their part, but the question is of course in terms of who determines the role of each of those sectors.

“Is it the state and government acting in the interest of its citizens or are the solutions packages being put forward in the interest of business and corporations?”

“Not only [have] they got a grip on our policy but now we want to put them in the driving seat?” he questioned not just of Engie’s involvement in the COP but of corporate presence generally. “It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.”

Engie has been working to promote its clean energy initiatives in the lead up to and throughout the climate talks. But the fact is that still only 4 percent of its power is generated from renewables. If you include nuclear and hydro power this comes closer to 22 percent.

Natural gas on the other hand forms the majority of its generating capacity along with coal and nuclear. And just outside of Paris in Saint Ouen – less than 10km away from the COP21 climate summit – there is a coal plant operated by CPCU, a subsidiary of Engie.

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.

Some corporate sponsors of the COP21 Paris climate talks are failing to properly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions a new report reveals.

The Paris climate conference is sponsored by over 60 companies including big polluters EDF, Engie and BNP Paribas. And while countries continue to negotiate a deal on tackling climate change, what have these corporate sponsors brought to the table?

A new study published this week by French social research group BASIC and the Multinationals Observatory shows that very few of the COP21 sponsors are declaring their GHG emissions in a transparent way.

The report looked at the GHG emission reduction policies of ten COP21 sponsors: Accor, BNP Paribas, Carrefour, EDF, Engie, Kering, LVMH, L’Oréal, Micheline and Renault.

Of these, only one company – EDF – has actually reduced its overall carbon footprint in line with EU targets.

Corporate Transparency

Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory told DeSmog UK: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“But as we show in our report, private companies are not as exemplary as they'd like to pretend. Only a minority of them report on their emissions in a transparent, accessible way,” Petitjean said.

Only four of the ten companies examined actually publish their GHG emissions data: BNP Paribas, Carrefour, Kering and LVMH. However, none of these companies take into consideration the full impact of its business’ value chain – from raw materials to waste disposal.

And while half of the companies in the study – Accor, Kering, L’Oréal, Michelin and Renault – did commission a full assessment of their emissions over the value chain, none of them have shown any GHG emission cuts at this scale.

The failure to address a companies’ upstream and downstream emissions is troubling given that for these COP21 sponsors, the majority of their emissions are located in these areas which represent up to 85 percent of their global GHG footprint.

Where companies do make GHG reductions, many times this is done through carbon offsets elsewhere rather than investing in emission cuts at their home-operations in Europe.

EDF and Engie

In particular, Petitjean highlighted the contradiction between EDF and Engie’s prominence at the climate talks compared to their environmental performance.

“The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF,” said Petitjean, noting that both companies have large-scale advertising campaigns going on which highlight their sponsorship of the climate talks.”

He continued: “When you look at the reality of their investments and their portfolio, the share of renewables is still really minimal, and it mostly comes from gobbling up smaller companies.”

Both also continue to invest in coal and have also just signed contracts with Cheniere to import liquefied natural gas from the U.S. starting in 2017.

Photo: UNFCCC 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 lot of people today have been asking whether the ‘French gamble’ paid off. Did having over 150 heads of state in Paris for the first day of COP21 set the bar for ambitious, meaningful and successful negotiations, or was it just a chaotic mess creating unrealistic expectations?

Never has an international summit seen this many world leaders all show up at once. And yesterday was manic, there’s no other way to describe it. But I think it worked.

Now it’s just a matter of waiting to see whether substantive offers are brought to the table.

Riots

But before I get into all the craziness, let me start at the beginning. One of the first things I wanted to do when I got here was to visit the Place de la Republique. Firstly, to pay my respects to the lives lost during the November 13 attacks. Flowers, candles and letters to loved ones continue to be added each day to the bronze Marianne statue surrounded by sombre onlookers.

Due to the heightened security measures the French authorities cancelled the big climate march in Paris that was scheduled for Sunday.

This brings me to the second reason why I visited Place de la Republique. In a symbolic march, thousands of shoes were donated – including by Pope Francis himself – and arranged in the pedestrian square by the statue. Seeing the two displays side by side was really quite moving. The atmosphere was extremely peaceful, quiet and hopeful.

But the seemingly never-ending line of police gearing up along the nearby rue du Temple felt ominous. And then, later in the day, a group of demonstrators turned violent, throwing objects at the police and the police retaliating with tear gas. According to the BBC 100 people were arrested. Walking past the aftermath I saw the streets littered with broken glass, trampled flowers, and abandoned shoes.

Clouds and Storms

Both of these issues – the November 13 attacks and the climate marches – were touched upon during the opening ceremony yesterday.

In a powerful speech, French President Francois Holland said: “I’m not choosing between the fight against terrorism and the fight against global warming because we must leave our children more than a world free of terror, we owe them a planet free from disasters.”

“It is in the name of climate justice that I am speaking today and in the name of climate justice that we must act,” he continued. “Climate change will bring conflicts just like clouds bring storms.”

“It is causing migration which is causing more refugees to take flight than wars. States face no longer being able to meet the basic needs [of their people],” he said highlighting access to water as one example of this.

He concluded: “What is at stake with this climate conference is peace.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon followed, saying: “The peoples of the world are also on the move.  They have taken to the streets, in cities and towns across the world, in a mass mobilization for change.”

So now campaigners hope delegates will  take a cue from yesterday’s many speeches and pursue a strong deal. And, strangely for a climate conference, seems not a moment has been lost. Negotiations began yesterday evening and went well past midnight – and remember, this is just the first day of the first week.

Al Gore Selfies

It was a hectic day yesterday for all. Amidst people chasing Al Gore for selfies a photographer lost the flash to his camera. A mere victim of the mob, the flash was left on the ground as the throng of photographers stayed glued to the American “climate hero”.

Then, standing outside the La Seine plenary hall – inside which all the leaders were gathered – I witnessed the Mauritanian delegates, all donning green scarves, line up to shake hands with their president as he left the hall to celebrate what, incidentally, was also their national independence day.

In comparison, today is quieter. It is much less ‘spectacle’ and much more ‘getting down to business’. Media are no longer fighting for desk space and I’ve found where they’re serving the good French cheese for lunch. Every now and then you’ll see a group of delegates hurriedly-walking from one hall to the next. Lone journalists are seen running across the media block as if their life depends on it. Important stuff is clearly happening.

So far there’s been lots of talk about a 1.5C degree target vs 2C, loss and damage, and climate finance.

Everyone is keeping an eye on what China and India are doing along with known disruptors the ‘ALBA countries’ (a group of Latin American nations known as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas). Nations’ red lines have yet to be revealed and everyone knows compromises must be made. But it’s just day two. There is so much more yet to come.

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.