radiofree.asia

Category: pollution

  • A COP28 flop: summit’s most ambitious option would still have failed to deliver climate justice

    Another year, another failed climate summit. Running into overtime – the United Nations Conference of Parties 28 (COP28) finally came to a deeply disappointing close on Wednesday 13 December.

    Yet, even COP28’s most ambitious options for a fossil fuel phase-out would still have flopped. The UN conference was never going to be the route to climate justice.

    COP28 – another cop out

    Firstly, the good news. After 28 consecutive climate summits, and global governments’ abject failure to stymie the climate crisis, surely we can finally dispense with the notion that the corporate-captured political class will save us.

    Then, buckle up for the bad news: governments utterly failed to get the world out of the emergency room. Predictably – after almost three decades of derailed decisions – they fell far short of negotiating anything like a concrete agreement. The final text reads like a wrap sheet of weasel words designed to evade real action on tackling climate breakdown.

    Crucially, the headline failure lies in what it misses out. Climate campaigners were calling for a:

    a full, fast, fair and funded fossil fuel phase-out

    However, the final agreement fudged even the barest mention of this “phase-out”, dropping the framing entirely.

    In other words, it was the biggest cop out since – well – the last climate conference in November 2022. And yet, this is hardly surprising. Bad faith governments have scuppered every COP since COPs began. It’s why, from their inception in 1995 to now, global greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed, the Earth has warmed to 1.3°c, and climate supercharged disasters have struck apace.

    Who could have guessed that a climate conference led by the head of the host country’s oil and gas company would crash and burn? Certainly not the countless climate activists, organisations, and communities that voiced their (now sadly vindicated) concerns from the very start of his appointment. It’s the kind of “I told you so” moment you wished would never materialise – but inevitably did, just to spite you; to spite all of us. As it stands then: the world is well and truly fucked.

    Phase-out fudge

    By Friday 8 December, negotiators were floating a number of phase out options in the draft text.

    At this point, there was a no frills fossil fuel phase-out statement on the table, proposing this “in line with the best available science”. The Republic of the Marshall Islands-led High Ambition Coalition (HAC) and New Zealand purportedly backed this approach. The HAC includes some Global North nations such as France and Spain, a few African states, and a number of Pacific Island nations. A similar option mooted this phase out in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “pathways” to 1.5°c.

    Wordier, weaker versions hedged the phase-out with some predictably slippery caveats. Not least among these was “unabated” – a favourite Global North get-out clause. It would permit fossil fuels, so long as operators utilise unproven technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) to syphon off emissions.

    Meanwhile, some made reference to ‘net zero’, offering another convenient loophole. As the Canary’s Tracy Keeling has previously pointed out in advance of COP26:

    Net Zero doesn’t mean real zero carbon emissions. It’s essentially a plan to ensure the amount of carbon emitted by a country or organisation isn’t more than the amount of carbon they ensure is removed from the atmosphere. 2050 is the year most Net Zero ambitions centre on.

    But Net Zero calculations generally include unrealistic claims about nature’s carbon-storing capacity, uncertain technologies, and highly contested energy ‘solutions’. What they often lack, meanwhile, is a plan to dramatically lower emissions by reducing and ultimately ending fossil fuel use.

    Invariably, the text cycled through different iterations to finally land on an altogether different statement:

    Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science

    Like many climate campaigners and frontline communities, executive director of 350.org May Boeve was understandably frustrated at this outcome. She lamented that the fossil fuel transition statement:

    is surrounded by so many loopholes that it has been rendered weak and ineffectual

    Fossil fuel friends in the room

    Of course, it was the usual suspects stifling this key commitment to meaningful climate action.

    For one, fossil fuel companies stacked the summit full to the rafters with lobbyists. It’s nothing new, but the scale surpassed previous summits by some margin. COP26 in Glasgow welcomed 503 fossil fuel lobbyists into the fray. Then, at COP27, the number shot up to 636. This time, COP28 officials granted 2,456 corporate fossil fuel lobbyists access to the conference. The fact that fossil fuel company presence has been a long-time feature of these climate deliberations should send alarm bells ringing.

    Meanwhile, leading oil-producing nations were the obvious malign actors who put their fossil fuel filibustering on full display at this year’s COP. As Damian Carrington picked up for the Guardian, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) lobbied its member nations to:

    proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy, ie fossil fuels, rather than emissions

    So, it seems the fossil fuel majors’ government lackeys brought talk of a phase-out to a grinding halt. Former US vice president and environmentalist Al Gore called out OPEC nations for their role in wrecking the agreement:

    Looking on high from greenhouse gas-gilded towers

    Yet this is not to let other fossil fuel-powered economies off the hook either. Some highlighted the hypocrisy of Gore playing the blame game coming from the US – with its long tradition of jeopardising climate negotiations:

    Additionally, as 350.org highlighted, while some large oil producing nations like the US seemed to back the more ambitious agreement:

    the text they are proposing could actually hinder climate goals by obscuring the meaning of “phaseout” and enshrining dangerous distractions like carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, and nuclear in the phaseout text.

    Ostensibly, the US and other fossil fuel-based economies hold up the pretence of backing climate action. In reality however, they push proposals riddled with loopholes that throw the industry a lifeline. Evidently, they’re content to hide behind countries frank enough to wear their climate betrayal on their sleeve.

    Moreover, quite how the US – the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gas emissions with plans to expand oil and gas infrastructure – can credibly lecture the world on phasing out fossil fuels is anyone’s guess. Of course, the same goes for other large fossil fuel economies burgeoning their already outsized emissions.

    Words into action

    What’s more, for all their phase-out bluff these fossil fuel industrialised states persistently fail to actually walk the walk.

    This is the crux. Even supposing the parties had agreed to phase-out fossil fuels – using whatever qualifiers – implementation is where it really counts. And when it comes to this, governments the world over are falling well short.

    According to Climate Action Tracker (CAT) – a scientific project that measures countries’ progress against the legally binding Paris Agreement goals – no nation is currently on course to meet these targets. Moreover, CAT has calculated that global government’s current 2030 targets will:

    lead to 2.5°C of warming by the end of the century: 0.1°C higher than last year.

    Effectively, countries aren’t living up to their Paris promises. Now, the corporate media are publishing article after article parroting COP28 president sultan Al Jaber’s praise for the latest “historic” agreement. Paris too was lauded as “historic”, but when push has come to shove, governments aren’t actually meeting their warm words with concerted action.

    Global North failing the just transition

    Ultimately, the options on the table were already a low bar. Head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network (CAN) International Harjeet Singh highlighted the vital wording COP28 negotiators missed out from the very start:

    In short, without the necessary transfer of climate finance from the Global North to the Global South, a just transition for poorer nations will not be possible.

    As I’ve pointed out before, historic polluters have a particular responsibility to phase-out fossil fuels, while financing the green transition of poorer nations. It’s what the UN process calls “common, but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR), but rich countries have bent over backwards to avoid them.

    Notably for instance, they failed to fork out the $100bn in climate finance by 2020 that they had pledged to poorer nations at COP15 in 2009.

    According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), countries may have finally delivered this in 2022. However, governments provided over two-thirds of the public finance through loans. What’s more, the costs of adaptation to the climate crisis and mitigation from its impacts has spiralled. A 2022 study estimated poorer nations would need $2tn in funding by 2030.

    To add insult to injury, as the Global North nations and institutions saddle poorer countries with unjust debt, they regularly force them into servicing it through fossil fuels – locking them into climate-wrecking infrastructure.

    At the end of the day, COP28 was always set to be another climate farce. COP28 negotiations could only ever lead to an entirely non-binding wish-list for climate. Fossil fuel phase-out or not, with this new agreement we might hold the receipts, but there’ll be no replacement for a habitable planet.

    Feature image via COP28 UAE/Youtube screengrab.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Only Some States Are Warning Residents of “Forever Chemicals” in Freshwater Fish

    Bill Eisenman has always fished. “Growing up, we ate whatever we caught — catfish, carp, freshwater drum,” he said. “That was the only real source of fish in our diet as a family, and we ate a lot of it.” Today, a branch of the Rouge River runs through Eisenman’s property in a suburb north of Detroit. But in recent years, he has been wary about a group of chemicals known as PFAS…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Shell to face human rights claims in UK over chronic oil pollution in Niger delta

    More than 13,000 Nigerian villagers can bring legal claims against oil firm, rules high court

    Thousands of Nigerian villagers can bring human rights claims against the fossil fuel company Shell over the chronic oil pollution of their water sources and destruction of their way of life, the high court in London has ruled.

    Mrs Justice May ruled this week that more than 13,000 farmers and fishers from the Ogale and Bille communities in the Niger delta were entitled to bring legal claims against Shell for alleged breaches to their right to a clean environment.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Indigenous Groups in New Mexico Demand Action as Toxic Waste Spills Quadruple

    It’s been two years since United States Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced the Honoring Chaco Initiative, a multiphase plan with the potential to transform how land stewardship decisions about mineral extraction, remediation and cleanup of extraction sites on federally controlled lands are made in the Greater Chaco Region of northern New Mexico. But members of the Greater Chaco Coalition are…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In First-of-Its-Kind Lawsuit, New York Targets PepsiCo’s Plastic Pollution

    Plastic trash produced by the company PepsiCo has become a “persistent and dangerous form of plastic pollution” for residents of the Buffalo River watershed in upstate New York, according to a new lawsuit filed Wednesday. The suit, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, is one of the first legal challenges from a state against a major plastic producer. It draws on a 2022 investigation…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Richest 1 Percent Produced as Many Emissions as Poorest Two-Thirds of Humanity

    The richest 1% of the global population produced 16% of the world’s carbon dioxide in 2019, generating as much planet-warming pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity, according to a report released Monday by Oxfam International. Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99% describes the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and runaway inequality as “twin crises” that are leaving those least…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Exporting US Fracked Gas Is Far Worse for the Climate Than Coal, Study Finds

    The next big fight over fossil fuels is brewing in coastal Louisiana, where protests by local fishers against massive liquified gas export terminals are evolving into a nationwide movement to stop what a growing number of experts and environmentalists warn is a climate emergency. Venture Global, a giant in Louisiana’s fossil gas export industry, is awaiting federal approval for Calcasieu Pass 2…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • There is No Chinese “Debt Trap” in Sub-Saharan Africa, According to the IMF

    This week’s News on China.

    Sources:
    • “IMF denies ‘debt trap,’” South China Morning Post, 24.10.2023
    “‘Unimpeded trade’: China begins to deliver on US$10 billion promise to African businesses,” SCMP, 28.10.2023

    • “China develops the ‘most advanced memory chip in the world’,” SCMP, 26.10.2023
    “Xiaomi launches home-grown cross-device system with HyperOS, as US-sanctioned Huawei moves further from Google’s Android,” SCMP, 30.10.2023

    • “Eight years of reforming the People’s Liberation Army,” SCMP, 30.10.2023

    • “Pollution alert in northern China,” Reuters, 31.10.2023

  • Delaying South Africa’s just energy transition could result in 15,000 excess deaths caused by air pollution

    Air pollution could kill more than 15,000 people by 2050 if coal-dependent South Africa delays its green transition.

    A new study by non-profit the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) revealed that delaying the decommissioning of South Africa’s coal-fired power plants beyond 2030 “would cause a projected 15,300 excess air pollution-related deaths” between 2023 and 2050.

    Additionally, the delay could also cost the country’s economy more than US $18bn.

    Air pollution deaths

    The Helsinki-based research centre said in the study that:

    The air pollutant emissions from prolonged operation of the plants would have a major impact on public health in South Africa

    Specifically, according to CREA, particulate matters exposure would cause around 6,200 of the extra deaths. Meanwhile, nitrogen dioxide exposure could kill 3,500 more people, and sulphur dioxide would cause 5,700 additional deaths.The study said that:

    South Africa has a number of air pollution hotspots where air quality does not meet national air quality standards, let alone the WHO’s health-based guidelines

    Notably, the exposure to these toxic gases could put people at risk of a series of different illnesses and health impacts. For instance, these include asthma, premature and underweight babies, depression, pneumonia and bronchitis, and dementia.

    Coal dependency causing black-outs

    Currently, the South African government has only retired one of the country’s power plants. Although not yet fully decommissioned, the study said that its closure has avoided 220 deaths.

    The African nation remains one of the world’s top 12 largest polluters and the seventh largest coal producer. Coal is a bedrock of South Africa’s economy. It employs almost 100,000 people and accounts for 80% of the country’s electricity production.

    However, the country has been facing a power crisis. Since 2007, the country’s public utility company Eskom has rationed power through “load-shedding” events. These are intentional scheduled blackouts to manage the power grid.

    The blackouts were required due to a combination of ageing coal-fired infrastructure, poor management, and the flawed design of newer plants. As a result, South Africa’s coal power plants are failing to keep up with demand.

    2022 saw record levels of load-shedding, with scheduled outages that sometimes lasted up to 12 hours a day. This has sparked a renewed debate on the transition to cleaner energy.

    Just Energy Transition Partnership

    At COP26 in Glasgow, a group of wealthy nations promised $8.5bn to South Africa to aid its green transition. Billed as the first Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), the UK, US, France, Germany, and the EU have provided financing to help the country shift away from coal.

    However, the JETP has dredged up a number of issues. For example, as Climate Home News revealed in October 2022, contributing countries are providing 97% of this funding as loans. Naturally, these loans will serve to add to the country’s debt, which stands at 73% of its GDP.

    Of course, as the Canary has previously pointed out, fossil fuel infrastructure itself has also played a part in burdening countries with this unjust debt. Notably, wealthy nations financing the JETP have previously part-funded a number of South Africa’s coal-fired power plants. This includes the shoddily designed Medupi and Kusile coal-fired power stations, which have been partially responsible for ongoing rolling black-outs.

    Moreover, as its name suggests, nations intend for the JETP to aid communities in their shift away from fossil fuels. Despite this, a separate report by Climate Home News identified how the government has so far failed to inform coal worker communities of available reskilling programmes.

    So while these nations have helped cement coal carbon lock-in in South Africa, their JETP loans are still locking the country and its communities out of a just shift to renewables.

    ‘Timely decommissioning’

    As a result of the load-shedding crisis, earlier in 2023 the country’s electricity minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced plans to reschedule the decommissioning of some of the country’s power plants. In addition, he suggested refurbishing others.

    However, the CREA study argued that “timely decommissioning” would be needed to:

    reduce total operating and maintenance costs

    Moreover, the study’s estimates for potential air pollution deaths has brought the need for South Africa’s green and just transition into ever sharper relief.

    Feature image via Caracal Rooikat/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Companies and countries fail to exit carbon-intensive and climate-wrecking coal projects

    Since the Paris Agreement, companies have expanded coal plant capacity by an amount greater than the entire operating coal fleets of Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia combined. Moreover, coal corporations are planning to increase this capacity by a further 25%, according to new research.

    Companies fail to exit coal

    German campaign and research group Urgewald has released its annual analysis on the state of the world’s top coal mining, power plant, and production companies. The Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) compiled by the group and 40 NGO partners is a database of over 1,400 parent companies of coal assets.

    Director of Urgewald Heffa Schuecking said that the “overall picture that our data delivers is bleak”. In particular, Schuecking noted that:

    Out of the 1,433 companies on the GCEL, only 71 companies have announced coal exit dates. Meanwhile, 577 companies are still developing new coal assets.

    Significantly, the analysis found that companies had expanded the global coal plant fleet by 186 GW since nations signed the Paris Agreement in 2015. On top of this, the GCEL companies have projects in the pipeline that would add an extra 516 GW of coal-fired power capacity. This would be equivalent to increasing the world’s existing capacity by a quarter.

    Meanwhile, the report also identified that companies are planning an increase in coal mining. In 2022, companies pushed thermal coal production to an all-time record high of over 7.2bn tonnes. Naturally, they intend to maintain this trend. The report stated that:

    All in all, companies on the GCEL are planning to develop new thermal coal mining projects with a total capacity of 2.5 billion tons per year, an amount equal to over 35% of the world’s current production.

    As it stands, coal companies show no signs of exiting the polluting fossil fuel.

    Countries ramping up coal

    The Urgewald findings followed another piece of crucial coal analysis from September. As the Canary reported, overall, G20 nations are failing to exit coal-based power emissions. The group of large economies had increased their per-capita coal-based emissions by 9% between 2015 and 2022.

    As with the G20 report, Urgewald found that some countries in particular are driving the uptake of new coal capacity. The report identified that China is planning the largest ramp up in coal power plant capacity. Alone, the country will make up two-thirds of the new planned 516 GW.

    Ironically, the report highlighted that climate-fueled extreme weather has been the primary instigator for its coal plans. Specifically, record drought  has hit its hydropower generation. Meanwhile, record-breaking heatwaves have causing electricity demand to surge. As a result, the perfect storm of climate super-charged weather has pushed the country to take up more of the dirty fossil fuel.

    India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Russia, and Bangladesh are also planning new coal-fired power capacity, to the tune of 72 GW, 21 GW, 14 GW, 12 GW, and 10 GW respectively.

    Replacing one fossil fuel with another

    Seeing these results, Western politicians might therefore point the finger at China – their often-favoured climate action get-out clause. However, the report’s findings tempered this climate whataboutism. While eight of the world’s top ten coal plant developers are Chinese state-owned, US investors are also heavily implicated.

    Notably, 96 investors from the US, including BlackRock and Vanguard, account for over a quarter of institutional investments in these coal power developers. Moreover, having fewer plans for coal-fired power generation does not let other nations off the hook either. In particular, the Urgewald report highlighted that many countries were simply shifting from coal-fired power to other fossil fuels.

    As such, Schuecking argued that:

    Replacing one fossil fuel with another is not the answer. New gas plants lock in decades of additional CO 2 and methane emissions that we can’t afford.

    As the Canary has previously pointed out, for example:

    while it has lowered coal-based emissions, the UK government has continued to double down on fossil fuel production.

    Specifically, the UK has greenlit a new coal mine in Cumbria, as well as the enormous climate-wrecking Rosebank oil and gas field. Campaigners have estimated that across its lifetime, Rosebank will produce the emissions equivalent of burning 56 coal-fired power plants for an entire year.

    Global coal exit

    Multiple analyses have warned that the world needs to completely phase-out coal by 2040. For instance, research group Climate Analytics has argued that wealthy nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) should aim for no later than 2030 for a total coal phase-out. Moreover, it stated that the rest of the world will need to do the same by 2040.

    Similarly, a Global Energy Monitor (GEM) report in June corroborated this phase-out goal. In particular, this date is crucial for the world to meet its Paris Agreement target of keeping global temperature rises below 1.5°c.

    Urgewald’s findings come as countries prepare to meet for the COP28 climate summit in Dubai. In the lead-up to the summit, multiple nations have made pledges to phase out the use of coal. However, as Urgewald’s new research shows, countries and companies are still majorly falling short.

    In order to meet global climate goals, it’s vital that countries stop greenlighting new coal-fired power plants and digging up more of the most climate-destructive fossil fuel. An exit from coal must embody a genuinely green and just transition – anything less is a recipe for more climate disaster.

    Feature image via Calistemon/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

     

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Deforestation for rubber plantations two to three times worse than previously thought, study reveals

    A new study has found that deforestation for rubber cultivation has been “substantially underestimated” with devastating consequences for the biodiversity crisis. Crucially, it identified that forest destruction is two-to-three-times higher than generally assumed.

    The new study was released on Wednesday 18 October in the journal Nature. It suggested that corporations and smallholders have deforested more than four million hectares since 1993 for rubber plantations. Moreover, it revealed that they have planted rubber in areas that are key for biodiversity.

    Deforestation for rubber plantations

    Scientists said the study compiled the first detailed accounting of deforestation for rubber production in Southeast Asia. Notably, the region accounts for most of global production. Specifically, there, companies and smallholders cultivate more than 90% of global rubber.

    However, scientists have found the scale of the problem hard to quantify. This is because smallholders cultivate most rubber in plots that scientists have found difficult to pick out in imaging. They have therefore sometimes estimated figures based on national reports of crop expansion that are inaccurate or incomplete.

    The Nature study used newly available, higher resolution satellite imagery and compared it with historical imagery analysed by a computer programme.

    The analysis was possible in part because of the rubber plant’s distinct characteristics. In particular, the crop loses and regrows foliage at different times from tropical forest plants.

    Rubber plantations in biodiversity hotspots

    At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, world leaders agreed to end deforestation by 2030.

    As the Canary’s Tracy Keeling highlighted, ending deforestation is crucial in the fight against the climate and biodiversity crises. Keeling noted that:

    Vast numbers of species call them home and they absorb carbon from the atmosphere, to name but two of their many gifts to the rest of the living world.

    Now, the new study has specifically underlined the dangers to biodiversity posed by deforestation for rubber. In particular, the analysis found mature rubber plantations covered 14.2 million hectares in Southeast Asia in 2021. These were mostly in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

    It suggested that companies cleared an estimated 4.1 million hectares for rubber between 1993 and 2016 alone.

    Significantly, it found a million hectares of rubber plantations in regions nations had designated Key Biodiversity Areas. Specifically, this applied to biodiversity hotspots that governments had earmarked as of 2021.

    Study limitations, yet dire deforestation figures

    The researchers acknowledged that their calculation of deforestation is based on the conversion of any planted area to rubber. As a result, areas converted from agroforestry or other crops to rubber plantations were also counted as “deforested”.

    Overall, however, the researchers believed their count is likely to be an underestimate of the total area companies had planted for rubber. Partly, this is due to limitations in the research. For example, cloud cover on satellite images complicates calculations. Moreover, capturing all cultivation from space posed a challenge.

    The researchers also highlighted that they only examined rubber plantations that were still functioning in 2021 for signs of previous deforestation. Rubber plantations abandoned before 2021 were not counted. Of course, plantations prior to this date might also have caused deforestation.

    What’s more, the study only covered Southeast Asia. Of course, companies cultivate rubber outside this region, such as in parts of Africa and South America.

    EU rubber consumption driving deforestation

    Nonetheless, the researchers argued that the study showed that policymakers need to place more focus on rubber as a driver of deforestation. In particular, it underscored the importance of rubber in new legislation that the EU and other nations are developing.

    Specifically, it highlighted that:

    Around 70% of the global natural rubber production is used in tyres with a few main companies accounting for most consumption

    Moreover, it stated that since only a handful of companies account for most of the natural rubber consumers use globally:

    it should be assumed that main importers of rubber such as the EU are substantially exposed to rubber-related deforestation

    In November 2022, the EU reached an agreement on a key new deforestation law. The new law bans the import of high-risk commodities where companies have caused deforestation or forest degradation after 31 December 2020. Notably, the EU has included rubber in this list of products. On June 29, the EU put the new regulation into force. Evidently, the success of the new legislation is vitally needed to prevent further loss of the world’s biodiverse forest ecosystems.

    Feature image via Vis M/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Scientists project carbon emissions will reach record levels in 2023 – threatening global climate goals

    Preliminary figures from a new study project that global emissions of planet-heating carbon dioxide will rise to record levels in 2023.

    The CICERO climate research institute in Norway has estimated that the world is on track for a 1% rise in global emissions next year.

    Carbon emissions rising to record levels

    Scientists say the world will need to almost halve carbon pollution by 2030 in order to meet the world’s targets of limiting global warming to 1.5c.

    Notably, scientists have warned that heating beyond that threshold risks triggering dangerous tipping points in the climate system. Tipping points are where major impacts to ecosystems become irreversible. Specifically, this refers to changes like the irrevocable switch of rainforests to grasslands, or the melting of the polar ice sheets. For example, a study in June suggested that summer Arctic sea-ice may reach the point of no return by 2030.

    Moreover, exceeding the 1.5c threshold would risk greater climate impacts. Significantly, this includes climate-exacerbated extreme weather such as dangerous flooding, droughts, and wildfires.

    Therefore, the world desperately needs to curtail emissions if we want to be in with a chance of keeping warming below 1.5c. Crucially, research director at CICERO Glen Peters said global CO2 emissions should in fact be falling by around 5% this year to keep on track.

    Instead, according to his research, emissions have continued to rise. Peters currently projects that the year will see emissions up between 0.5 and 1.5%.

    Slash carbon emissions to meet the Paris Agreement

    The preliminary figures show just how dauntingly hard it will be to slash carbon emissions fast enough to meet the Paris Agreement goal. Peters said that:

    Each year emissions keep rising makes it all the harder to reach pathways consistent with Paris

    Earlier in 2023, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said that for the first time, world demand for oil, gas and coal is forecast to begin declining this decade. It said that this is due to the “spectacular” growth of cleaner energy technologies and electric cars.

    However, the energy watchdog has also warned of the negative impact of increased fossil fuel investments. As a result, it lamented that emissions remained “stubbornly high”. Notably, they had done so during the post-pandemic economic rebound and the energy crisis driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Research in September, for instance, found that G20 nations’ coal-based emissions had continued to rise despite their climate pledges. Together, these major economies accounted for 80% of global power sector emissions.

    Time to phase out fossil fuels

    Peters argued that phasing out fossil fuels is vital to reducing carbon emissions. He said that currently his concern is:

    that we are doing half the job, growing clean energy, and not doing the other half of the job, transitioning away from fossil fuels.

    As the Canary has reported, countries attending the upcoming COP28 climate summit are divided over the need to phase out fossil fuels. COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber – who also heads the United Arab Emirates oil company – has repeatedly expressed his view that fossil fuels will be needed to meet energy needs into the future.

    Conversely, India and countries in Africa are calling on wealthy nations to halt new fossil fuel projects. As Climate Home News reported, a group of African countries will demand that industrialised nations cease greenlighting new oil, gas, and coal projects.

    Meanwhile, India is calling for rich countries to commit to going beyond net zero emissions. Speaking to Reuters, an anonymous government official said that:

    The rich countries should become net negative emitters before 2050 to enable the world to achieve the target of global net-zero by that year while allowing developing nations to use the available natural resources for growth

    Rich countries must step up fast

    Of course, the impacts of the intensifying climate crisis will hit poor countries and communities hardest. The world has already warmed 1.1c above pre-industrial temperatures. Already, countries in the Global South have experienced the devastating toll of climate-exacerbated extreme weather.

    On the publication of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report in March, United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres called on rich nations to step up. As the world races towards another year of likely record carbon emissions, this could not be more urgent.

     

    Feature image via Adina Voicu/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, image in the public domain

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Met Police arrest Greta Thunberg for protest at fossil fuel conference teeming with corporate climate criminals

    On Tuesday 17 October, hundreds of international protesters gathered in London to shut down a major fossil fuel conference where some of the world’s largest corporate climate criminals were set to convene. Of course, the Met police turned up to escort fossil fuel executives through the throng of protesters – and to arrest the activists blocking the entrance – including Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.

    Protest at major fossil fuel conference

    On Tuesday, activists from across Europe travelled to London to join protests outside a major fossil fuel conference. Protesters demonstrated in streets outside the Intercontinental Hotel, where fossil fuel companies and their financiers were meeting for the Energy Intelligence Forum. The event runs between 17 to 19 October.

    Climate activists including Fossil Free London disrupt the Energy Intelligence Forum, London, UK

    Climate activists including Fossil Free London disrupt the Energy Intelligence Forum, London, UK

    As the Canary’s Steve Topple previously highlighted, the forum is “the world’s largest annual gathering of energy companies.” Moreover, Topple noted that guests included “bosses from notorious fossil fuel companies”.

    In fact, the conference is brimming with speakers from the likes of major climate-wrecking corporations including BP, Chevron, and Exxonmobil.

    So, as profiteering bosses from infamous ecocidal corporations sidled up, activists blocked the doors to the conference. Naturally then, the Met police arrived to arrest the protesters taking direct action against these environmental vandals.

    Police arrest Greta Thunberg

    Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg took part in the action. On Twitter, Fossil Free London announced her arrest alongside that of 26 fellow activists:

    In a press release on Wednesday, the organisation said it believed that all arrestees have now been released. It stated that the police had charged a number of protesters with breaching the Section 14 order which the force had put in place during the demo.

    Speaking to the crowd before joining the action, Thunberg said:

    Behind these closed doors at the oil and money conference, spineless politicians are making deals and compromises with lobbyists from destructive industries, the fossil fuel industry.

    People all over the world are suffering and dying from the consequences of the climate crisis caused by these industries who we allow to meet with our politicians and have privileged access to.

    Echoing this, in a press release before the protest, Fossil Free London organiser Nuri Syed Corser said that the activists were staging the action to:

    get oily money out of our politics

    Conflicts of interest

    Activists therefore highlighted the hypocrisy of politicians attending the conference, which was ostensibly advertised as a “high-level networking” opportunity.

    The COP28 climate summit’s president Sultan Al Jaber was originally due to speak.

    Climate groups and campaigners have fiercely criticised his role as COP28 president. Specifically, they’ve highlighted his conflict of interest as head of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) state oil and gas firm. As such, him speaking at the high-profile fossil fuel conference would have added fuel to the fire.

    On 11 October, Fossil Free London rejoiced in a tweet that their protests had forced the COP28 president to withdraw from speaking at the forum:

    The conference website no longer lists Al Jaber among its speakers.

    Big polluter elite in politics

    However, protests haven’t stopped other policymakers from mingling with fossil fuel bosses and their backers. As Topple previously remarked for the Canary, energy minister Graham Stuart MP is attending on behalf of the UK government.

    In September, the government greenlit the disastrous Rosebank oil and gas field. The project will generate enormous emissions over its lifetime and jeopardise the UK reaching its 2050 net zero target. Of course, this is the same target which Rishi Sunak also threw under the bus with a series of green policy rollbacks earlier that same month.

    As the Canary pointed out at the time, these moves are invariably “a boon for the big polluter elite”. Naturally, British politicians happen to be among them – none more notable than the prime minister himself. It’s also worth mentioning that conference attendees Shell and BP have both signed major deals with Sunak’s father-in-law’s IT firm Infosys.

    Moreover, fossil fuel companies have their hooks in UK politics through generous political donations. In 2022 alone, Desmog revealed that the industry had given over £3.5m in donations to the Conservative Party.

    The Canary’s Tracy Keeling previously wrote on politicians’ cosy relationship with big polluters that:

    Decision makers too often appear aligned – in thought and deed – with interests that are not only responsible for the crises, but actively pushing against the reforms necessary to tackle them. Until this changes, meaningful action will remain out of reach.

    Networking bonanza and bogus transition claims

    The agenda itself is packed with a bonanza of networking events, including a “luncheon” hosted by harbinger of climate and environmental destruction, Saudi Aramco.

    Unsurprisingly, the conference includes a number of discussions on some of the fossil fuel industry’s favoured climate ‘solutions’. For instance, attendees can join the conversation on carbon capture and storage entitled “How Can CCUS Fulfill Its Promise Profitably”. Meanwhile, the conference will also play host to talks on the “Future of Hydrogen”.

    Of course, as the Canary has consistently highlighted, these low carbon ‘solutions’ are riddled with problems – not least that they throw a lifeline to extend the industry’s extractive operations. Yet politicians from across the divide are buying into these business-as-usual technologies. These same ‘solutions’ were front and centre at both the recent Conservative, and Labour Party conferences.

    In a press release, Thunberg underscored the danger in allowing the fossil fuel industry to steer the conversation:

    The elite of the oil and money conference have no intention of transition. Their plan is to continue this destructive surge of profits.

    Indeed, campaign groups have repeatedly exposed fossil fuel companies’ bogus transition claims. Recently for instance, Reclaim Finance demolished French fossil fuel major TotalEnergies claim that it was “the most committed to the energy transition.”

    Instead, the group found that the company in fact:

    intends to increase its fossil gas business in both relative and absolute terms

    Keeping up the pressure as industry turns up the heat

    After the arrests, activists have continued protests undeterred. On Wednesday morning, they gathered again outside the conference. This time, protesters turned out to challenge Equinor boss Anders Opedal. The Norwegian energy giant is developing the controversial Rosebank project off the Scottish coast.

    Activists intend to continue to disrupt the forum throughout its three-day conference – showing that they will not back down in calling out the profiteers hell-bent on destroying the planet.

    Featured image and additional images via Fossil Free London

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • EU to call for fossil fuel phase-out at COP28 – but remains wedded to controversial ‘abatement’ technology

    On Monday 16 October, EU nations unanimously agreed to seek a global phase-out of fossil fuels. Moreover, in its statement, the bloc’s environment ministers determined that fossil fuel use must reach a peak in this decade.

    At the COP28 UN climate talks in November, the bloc will also call for the elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels which do not serve to combat energy poverty or ensure a “just transition”. However, it kept the wording vague, stating that parties should do this “as soon as possible”. It did not set a deadline, as non-profit organisations had hoped.

    The new EU commissioner for climate matters, Wopke Hoekstra, will take the bloc’s position to COP28 in Dubai from 30 November  to 12 December.

    Fossil fuel phase-out

    Multiple analyses have found that in order to keep the world below 1.5°c of warming, governments must end investment in new fossil fuel projects.

    For example, in 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) produced a blueprint for the world to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The IEA’s roadmap suggested that nations should not greenlight new oil, gas, and coal extraction beyond 2021.

    Echoing this, a 2022 report bolstered the IEA’s case that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with staying under 1.5°c.

    As such, to meet Paris Agreement goals, countries are developing plans to shift away from fossil fuels. However, countries disagree on how this must be done.

    Controversial terminology

    Primarily, the divide concerns the use of ‘abatement’ technology. At COP28, many countries will push to secure an unprecedented commitment to move away from ‘unabated’ fossil fuels, specifically.

    The term ‘unabated’ tends to refer to oil, gas, and coal operators’ implementation of technology to offset or capture emissions. Largely, this would include fossil fuel projects which use carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce emissions.

    However, the technology is controversial. As non-profits and media investigations have pointed out, the technology is unproven at scale, and has offered a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry. As the Canary’s  Tracy Keeling has previously summarised:

    This is a controversial and uncertain technology that would ultimately pass the carbon problem on to future generations.

    A statement the EU released after its meeting read:

    (The European) Council stresses that the transition to a climate-neutral economy will require a global phase-out of unabated fossil fuels and a peak in their consumption in this decade

    Additionally, the 27 European nations will advocate:

    the importance of having the energy sector predominantly free of fossil fuels well before 2050.

    This time, the bloc did not qualify the target with the ‘unabated’ loophole. So, what gives?

    Clashes over abatement technology for fossil fuels

    EU ministers meeting in Luxembourg clashed over the inclusion of the word ‘unabated’ in the negotiating mandate. Together with non-profits, some governments wanted to withdraw the ‘unabated’ label.

    Alternatively, nations suggested that the world needs to attach strict conditions to the use of carbon capture technology. In particular, this would prevent fossil fuel companies using the technology as justification for continued fossil fuel burning.

    EU commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said:

    There’s no alternative for driving down emissions across the board

    He argued that some sectors are extremely hard to abate, and thus carbon capture technology was needed “as part of the total solution space”.

    Spain’s ecological transition minister Teresa Ribera chaired the meeting. She likewise argued that in the immediate future, carbon capture technologies:

    should be tied to those sectors where it’s going to be difficult to engage in decarbonisation, where it’s difficult to wean themselves off fossil fuels for some of the industrial process

    Backing this, France’s energy transition minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher called such tech “of interest”. She also added that it should be reserved for sectors that were otherwise unable to decarbonise.

    In the end, the EU ministers retained the term “unabated” in the agreed text. However, the EU no longer mentions it in its long-term objective for an energy sector predominantly free of fossil fuels “well before 2050”.

    The fossil fuel abatement issue is expected to be bitterly fought over at the UN climate conference in Dubai.

    Renewables and decarbonisation targets

    In addition, the bloc also agreed to call for global action towards the tripling of installed renewable energy capacity by 2030. Alongside this, it agreed to argue for a doubling of energy efficiency, in line with COP28 president Al Jaber’s roadmap.

    The EU nations debated whether to maintain their legally established objective of a 55% reduction in the bloc’s greenhouse gases by 2030 or to set a more ambitious target. Currently, the EU’s adopted policies put it on a trajectory for a 57% reduction.

    European Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic and other officials argued that a 57% announcement would reinforce Europe’s ambition to be a global leader on combating the climate crisis.

    In the end, they simply updated their submission to indicate the bloc was aiming to reduce its emissions “by at least 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels”.

    Feature image via Euronews/Youtube screengrab.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 800,000 Tons of Radioactive Oil and Gas Waste From Pennsylvania Unaccounted For

    Pittsburgh — Waste from the oil and gas industry contains toxic and radioactive substances. Disposal of this waste is supposed to be carefully tracked, but 800,000 tons of oil and gas waste from Pennsylvania oil and gas wells is unaccounted for, according to a recent study. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and Duquesne University initially set out to investigate whether sediment in…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Scientists launch climate crisis ‘countdown clock’ report series to take governments to task

    Top scientists have launched a yearly report series to plug knowledge gaps ahead of COP28 crunch climate talks in the United Arab Emirates. Their novel new “countdown clock” project aims to provide up-to-date information on the climate crisis. In particular, the report aims to inform the public and policymakers on the world’s progress in meeting international climate targets.

    New report for tackling the climate crisis

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned the world is on course to cross the key warming threshold of 1.5°c above pre-industrial levels in the early 2030s.

    The UN scientific advisory panel is in charge of summarising research on the climate crisis. It has produced comprehensive and authoritative assessment reports in cycles of five to seven years since 1988.

    However, scientists feel that the lengthy time lag between its gargantuan reports is less useful for policymakers responding to a fast-moving climate emergency. They have highlighted that IPCC reports draw from studies that may already have been superseded by new findings.

    In response, 50 scientists – many lead IPCC contributors – teamed up to produce a more current paper on the climate crisis.

    ‘Countdown clock’

    The first peer-reviewed report of the series was published in the journal Earth System Science Data in June. It said that human-induced warming had reached 1.26°c in 2022. Crucially, it identified that temperatures had increased at an “unprecedented rate” of more than 0.2°c per decade in the 2013 to 2022 period.

    These were key updates to the IPCC report published less than a year earlier. In addition, it suggested there was evidence that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have slowed, and that a change of direction could be observed in future updates.

    Co-author Chris Smith of the University of Leeds said that scientists are now monitoring key climate metrics in a more coordinated way thanks to the annual datasets.

    Moreover, he stressed that the report “is an annual timely reminder” of the climate crisis. Importantly, he argued that this is needed for after the initial media frenzy around IPCC findings fades.

    Smith said the findings were:

    the closest number we can come up with that tells us where we are in relation to 1.5°c… This is like a countdown clock.

    Feeding into the COP28 climate summit

    The report’s authors hope that the study project can feed into international negotiations. In a year marked by devastating extreme weather events, Dubai will host the key COP28 negotiations starting on 30 November. Nations will convene to discuss plans aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and helping nations on the frontline deal with climate impacts.

    Smith said that contrary to the IPCC, which strives for political neutrality and consensus:

    We have a much more COP (UN climate talks) and policy focus

    Echoing this, co-author Peter Thorne from Maynooth University said that the work’s strength lies in:

     the simplicity of updating this handful of key numbers

    This, he argued, lent the work “immediate policy relevance”. As a result, the report ensured that negotiations and policy decisions could happen with “meaningful and updated information”.

    Climate summits compromised by the fossil fuel industry

    However, as the Canary’s Tracy Keeling has previously pointed out, the fossil fuel industry has historically had a significant presence at these summits. For instance, Keeling highlighted that at least 503 fossil fuel lobbyists flooded the 2021 COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

    Now Al Jaber, the head of the UAE’s state oil firm, is leading this year’s summit.

    The COP28 president-designate has hypocritically called for nations to step up their climate ambition, while his oil company ramps up financing for more production. Meanwhile, Al Jaber has leaned heavily towards climate ‘solutions’ favoured by the fossil fuel industry. For example, this includes carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

    Unsurprisingly, the COP28 president has publicly maintained support for the industry. On 8 October, the climate head told delegates at the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Climate Week that the world:

    cannot unplug the energy system of today

    His comments chimed with previous statements affirming the COP28 president’s continued endorsement of the polluting industry, despite the urgent need for its phasing out.

    ‘Ringing alarm bells’

    Given the fossil fuel industry’s seeming sway over the summit, the new project could still ultimately face similar hurdles to the IPCC’s report. Thorne said of the new findings in the co-authored climate ‘countdown clock’:

    In a rational world, it should be ringing alarm bells.

    However, in September, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) warned that the world was not on track to meet its target of limiting warming below 1.5°c. Moreover, rich nations continue to plough billions into fossil fuels. Notably, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that nations had in fact expanded subsidies for the climate-wrecking industry to a record $7tn in 2022.

    Feature image via COP28 UAE/Youtube screengrab

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Canary Workers' Co-op

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Climate crisis has decimated over 40% Antarctic ice shelves, study suggests

    Scientists have pointed to the climate crisis as the likely cause for the decline of Antarctic sea ice. On 12 October, a new study revealed that more than 40% of Antarctica’s ice shelves lost volume in 25 years.

    This climate-induced sea ice loss could threaten communities across the world and decimate Antarctic wildlife.

    Antarctic ice shelves decimated

    In a study published in the journal Science Advances on Thursday 12 October, scientists analysed more than 100,000 satellite radar images. Specifically, the researchers assessed the health of Antarctica’s 162 ice shelves.

    Ice shelves are freshwater extensions of the ice sheets that cover much of Antarctica. These float on the seas that surround the vast and ecologically fragile continent. The ice shelves act as giant “plugs” by stabilising massive glaciers, and slowing down the flow of ice into the ocean. When they shrink, these plugs weaken and the rate of ice loss from the glaciers increases.

    Crucially, the analysis found that the volume of 71 of these ice shelves fell from 1997 to 2021.

    According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, in September, sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest winter levels since records began 45 years ago.

    The role of the climate crisis

    As the Canary’s Tracy Keeling explained in January, scientists have been cautious to attribute the Antarctic sea ice loss to the climate crisis. This is because there are multiple factors which drive changes in sea ice extent within the region, such as wind patterns for instance.

    However, as Keeling highlighted, scientists are increasingly pointing to rapid global warming as a significant contributor. Remarking on the low ice levels, Keeling reported that Penn State geoscientist Richard Alley had argued that:

    the ice extent changes “must include the effects of global warming”

    And the new study provides more evidence to support the role of the climate crisis in the recent deterioration of Antarctic sea ice. Notably, it found that almost all of western Antarctica’s ice shelves lost volume as they were exposed to warmer water that eroded them from below.

    On the western Getz Ice Shelf alone, melting at the base was responsible for 95% of the net loss of 1.9tn tonnes of ice.

    University of Leeds professor Anna Hogg who co-authored the study said that it showed:

    We are seeing a steady attrition due to melting and calving… This is further evidence that Antarctica is changing because the climate is warming

    Meanwhile, co-author Benjamin Davison underscored that the ice shelves’ failure to regrow after a period of shrinking also bolstered the climate case. He said that:

    We expected most ice shelves to go through cycles of rapid but short-lived shrinking, then to regrow slowly

    Instead, we see that almost half of them are shrinking with no sign of recovery.

    Davison argued that without human-caused warming, some ice regrowth would have occurred on West Antarctica’s ice shelves through a natural variation in climate patterns.

    Ice loss destroying Antarctic wildlife

    Of course, the decline of Antarctic ice shelves could have significant ramifications for its wildlife inhabitants. A study in August found that extensive regional Antarctic ice loss had caused “catastrophic” breeding failures in four major emperor penguin colonies.

    Given the devastating impact of Antarctic sea ice loss on this iconic penguin species, the new Science Advances study only makes these findings more alarming.

    The new ice shelf research also comes as nations prepare to convene for the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). Established in 1982, the international treaty governs the fisheries and the exploitation of resources in the region. Representatives from global nations will begin a fortnight of meetings in Australia on Monday 16 October.

    Chief among the discussions will be the creation of three new Antarctic marine protected areas (MPAs). The bid to create the sanctuaries around Antarctica would safeguard nearly four million square kilometres (1.5 million square miles) of ocean from extractive human activities.

    The European Union and Australia first proposed these MPAs in 2010, before scaling plans down in 2017 in an attempt to win more support.

    However, China and Russia have persistently blocked the proposal, including most recently at the commission’s June meeting in Chile. Both nations have expressed concerns about compliance issues and fishing rights.

    Environmental non-profit WWF has called for the commission to finally act, given the record low levels of sea-ice in the region and evidence of “mass deaths of vulnerable species.” WWF Antarctic conservation manager Emily Grilly said that:

    We can’t stop all the effects of climate change in the short term, but we can take the pressure off in other ways.

    Ice shelf loss risks rising sea levels

    In February, United Nations (UN) secretary general Antonio Guterres warned that sea level rise threatens up to 900 million people. And in September, the leaders of nine small island states turned to a UN maritime court over the rising sea-level impacts of climate breakdown.

    The Science Advances study underlines the risks that Guterres and the island leaders are warning the world about. Davison said that:

    Acceleration of glaciers due to ice shelf deterioration has added about six millimetres to global sea level since the start of the study period

    Although Antarctica only contributes 6% to total sea level rise, Davison argued that:

    it could increase substantially in the future if ice shelves continue to deteriorate

    The study’s implications for coastal communities and low-lying island states therefore hammers this point home. Ultimately, the climate crisis-exacerbated ice loss and resulting sea level rise will threaten the continent’s non-human inhabitants, as well as coastal communities across the globe. Wealthy polluting nations and corporations need to step up fast.

    Feature image via W. Bulach/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC SA-BY 4.0

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Consumers squander nearly $10bn in critical minerals each year while extraction risks people and the planet

    A new report has found that every year consumers discard, or hold on to, disused electronic goods containing raw materials critical for the green energy transition which are worth almost $10bn.

    The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) released the new research on 12 October.

    Critical minerals in electronic waste

    The “invisible” e-waste amounts to nine billion kilograms every year worldwide. The related raw materials from this are worth $9.5bn. Notably, UNITAR said this equates to around one-sixth of the estimated 2019 total of $57bn for all e-waste.

    Toys, cables, electronic cigarettes, tools, electric toothbrushes, shavers, headphones and other domestic gadgets contain metals like lithium, gold, silver and copper. However, consumers squander the materials because they throw away this “invisible” waste.

    The report found that more than one-third of the “invisible” waste came from toys. For example, this included race cars, talking dolls, robots and drones. It identified that consumers throw 7.3bn of these items away annually.

    Meanwhile, the weight of the estimated 844m vaping devices consumers discard each year is equivalent to six Eiffel Towers.

    On top of this, the study also found that people disposed 950m kilograms of cables with recyclable copper wire last year. It said that this would be enough to circle the planet 107 times.

    ‘Transition’ minerals fuel human rights abuse

    The findings come amidst a global dash for minerals vital to the green transition. As countries embrace greener technologies, these critical ‘transition’ minerals will be needed to make the shift away from fossil fuels. As a result, the International Energy Agency has predicted that demand for critical minerals will more than double by 2030.

    In Europe alone, copper demand is predicted to multiply sixfold by 2030. This is to meet rising needs in key sectors like renewable energy, communications, aerospace and defence.

    However, these minerals could come with a heavy human rights cost. Multiple reports by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) have linked ‘transition’ minerals to allegations of human rights abuse. These transition minerals refer to six critical materials that manufacturers use for producing renewable energy technologies.

    The BHRRC operates a ‘transition minerals tracker’ which records allegations of rights abuses. Significantly, the non-profit has identified 510 allegations against companies extracting these minerals between 2010 and 2022.

    As the Canary previously reported for instance, a BHRRC report from March on the Andean region of South America revealed that:

    corporations are inflicting damage on the environment and the territories of peasant farmers and indigenous peoples.

    Likewise, reports from other regions have identified similar examples of abuse. Commenting on a separate BHRRC analysis from May, the Canary wrote that:

    mines in the Philippines and Indonesia had affected the health of nearby communities. Through water and air pollution, as well as damage to the environment, the mining operations impacted the food security and respiratory health of local residents.

    The deep-sea dilemma at the heart of critical mineral demand

    Moreover, the rocketing demand for critical transition minerals has pushed environmentally-destructive extraction solutions into the limelight. In particular, some countries have increasingly considered deep-sea mining to source these metals for meeting their net zero targets.

    In June 2021, Nauru caused controversy when it triggered a rule to enable deep-sea mining in international waters. The Pacific nation did so because it sought a license for a Canadian company subsidiary to mine the seabed beyond Nauru’s territorial seas. Effectively, this ‘two-year rule’ compels the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to consider applications for deep-sea mining after a two year window. ISA, as its name suggests, governs issues concerning the ocean bed.

    A July 2023 ISA meeting between nations in Kingston, Jamaica was expected to decide regulations for the mining industry. The meeting ended without finalising these regulations – but nonetheless, mining companies can still technically apply for licenses to plunder resources on the ocean bed.

    The Canary’s Tracy Keeling spoke to scientist Pradeep Singh who authored a key paper on deep-sea mining. Singh explained that the full impacts of deep-sea mining on ocean ecosystems is not “comprehensively known”. However, he pointed to some studies which already suggest that the biodiversity impact could be “severe”.

    Keeling therefore argued, like Singh, that the international community should “press pause” on deep-sea mining plans in order to give:

    breathing space to comprehensively assess and quantify all the potential damages. That includes all the damage to ecosystems, industries, and planetary health, that mining risks.

    Lack of awareness

    Given the potentially stark human rights and environmental impacts of further extraction, the recycling of electronic waste minerals is crucial.

    The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Forum, an international association of non-profit organisations, commissioned the UN report. Magdalena Charytanowicz from the non-profit group said that the main challenge to recycling electronic waste revolved around awareness. She argued that:

    Invisible e-waste often falls under the recycling radar of those disposing of them because they are not seen as e-waste

    As a result, Charytanowicz said:

    We need to change that and raising awareness is a large part of the answer.

    Therefore, if countries are to meet their climate targets through a just transition, the new report shows that better access and awareness for electronic recycling will be vitally needed.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Feature image via Eric Guinther/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • NZ election 2023: ‘Too cavalier’ – scientists call out Peters over climate change claims

    By Anneke Smith, RNZ News political reporter

    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has been spreading misleading climate information at public meetings during the Aotearoa general election campaign.

    Climate change has been topical during the campaign, with extreme weather events like the Hawke’s Bay floods still fresh in people’s minds.

    Both major parties have made clear commitments to New Zealand’s climate targets, while Peters has been questioning the science and sharing incorrect climate information at public meetings.

    At a gathering in Remuera last month Peters told voters, “Carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere and of that 0.04 percent, human effect is 3 percent.”

    Three climate analysts, including NIWA’s principal climate scientist Dr Sam Dean, have told RNZ this figure is incorrect.

    “It is not 3 percent. Humans are responsible for 33 percent of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now,” Dr Dean said.

    Peters also told voters New Zealand was a low-emitting country and tried to link tsunamis to climate change.

    “We are 0.17 percent of the emissions in this world and China and India and the United States and Russia are not listening . . .  The biggest tsunami the world ever had was 1968 in recent times.

    “We’ve only been keeping stats for the last 100 years, but you’ve got all these people out there saying these are unique circumstances and they haven’t got the scientific evidence to prove that.”

    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters speaks at a public meeting at Napier Sailing Club in Napier on 29 September 2023.
    Winston Peters is also trying to link tsunamis to climate change . . . “We’ve only been keeping stats for the last 100 years.” Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone

    Dr Dean said New Zealand might have low net emissions compared to other countries but there was no doubt Aotearoa was a “dirty polluter” — and tsunamis had nothing to do with climate change.

    “Proportionately on a per person basis, our emissions are very high and we produce more than our fair share of the pollution that is currently in the planet,” he said.

    “As far as we know, tsunamis have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever.”

    RNZ put some of Peters’ claims to him, asking him where he got the 3 percent figure he cited about the human impact on CO2.

    “Oh, we’ve got somebody now that’s arguing about the basic science . . .  I get it from experts internationally and if you want me to do all your homework, put me on a payroll,” Peters replied.

    Dr Dean who is an international expert is not the only scientist to debunk Peters’ climate claims.

    University of Waikato environmental science senior lecturer Dr Luke Harrington
    University of Waikato environmental science senior lecturer Dr Luke Harrington . . . “Events of such intensity will become more common and events of such rarity will become more intense as the world continues to warm.” Image: University of Waikato/RNZ News

    Waikato University’s Dr Luke Harrington and Canterbury University’s Dr David Frame have both looked at Peters’ comments.

    They describe his questions about the link between climate change and extreme weather events as “too cavalier” and “disingenuous”.

    “Climate change doesn’t cause extreme flooding events in a vacuum — a whole range of natural ingredients need to come together in just the right way for an individual event to occur,” Dr Harrington said.

    “What climate change does is intensify the wind and rain which results when these natural factors combine and an ex-tropical cyclone passes nearby. Events of such intensity will become more common and events of such rarity will become more intense as the world continues to warm.”

    Dr Harrington suggested Peters “peruse” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report if he needed any evidence.

    Dr Frame also referred to this report, saying there are strong links between (cumulative) anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and extreme rainfall events.

    Dr Dean said inaccuracies aside, Peters’ figures ignore methane emissions, making the problem seem much smaller than it really is.

    “That sort of story comes from the climate sceptic community and it’s a common tactic to phrase things in terms of very small numbers and then mix them up to trivialise the subject.”

    Other political parties may have vastly different approaches to emissions reduction but they all accept the climate science.

    National Party leader Chris Luxon — who may well have to work with Peters — had been clear there was no room for climate scepticism in this election.

    “Give it up, I mean we’re in 2023. There’s no doubt about it. You can’t be climate denier or a climate minimalist,” Luxon said.

    This may be a big ask if Winston Peters is not on board with the science.

    Early voting began yesterday in the general election and polling day is on October 14.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The ‘War on the War on Motorists’ is already a car crash

    To describe Rishi Sunak’s premiership as a ‘car crash’ would be inaccurate, if only because the term implies a one-off event. To add to the ridiculousness, the PM and his few remaining friends in the media keep urging us to agree about how clever he is for creating these chronic collisions. The latest disaster in this ongoing fiasco is Sunak’s ‘War on the War on Motorists‘.

    Sunak versus safety

    The ‘war on the war on motorists’ has come about not because of some longstanding political opinion, but because Sunak saw some people complaining about 20mph zones and reckoned he could win over a few hundred votes.

    Essentially, this makes the Tory leader look like an ambulance-chasing lawyer – a man who is running after voters and claiming he shares their interests and always has done. While you can possibly win votes that way, it doesn’t seem like a practical means of running a country.

    People have pointed out that many do actually want 20mph zones – especially outside schools and homes:

    One commenter highlighted the fact that ‘motorists’ also spend a lot of their spare time not being motorists:

    The public versus public transport?

    Columnist Andrew Fisher made a very good point about car use versus public transport:

    Political editor Peter Walker elaborated on the situation we find ourselves in:

    Arguably, the past few governments (Labour included) haven’t shifted the balance towards public transport. Local transport in the UK ranks among the most expensive in Europe; rail fares are equally ridiculous. People below a certain age might not even realise that public transport is supposed to be cheaper than driving. The reason why it isn’t is the private companies who are using this public good as their own personal piggy bank.

    The war on the environment

    Several people have pointed out that the real war on motorists is the one being waged by Mother Nature:

    Given that Mother Nature has us significantly outgunned, what we really need are politicians with the sense to stop assaulting the environment:

    Another politician pointed out what we could achieve by enhancing public transport and making it easy for people to avoid driving everywhere:

    The War on the War on Motorists: whiplash politics

    Sunak is currently attending the annual Tory Party Conference in Manchester. Given that he’s facing criticism from everyone – including his own MPs – its unclear how long his War on the War on Motorists will survive. No one is quite sure what policies the PM will propose next week. However, while that’s no way to run a country, history has shown us that a Tory with no idea where they’re heading is preferable to a Tory who does.

    Featured image via Flickr – Number 10 cropped to 770 x 403 under licence CC BY 2.0

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Thorold Rejects New Gas Plant Proposal

    by Mark Freeman

    As you may know by now, Thorold City council voted unanimously against Northland Power’s proposal to build a new gas plant in Thorold. 

    Or as I like to think of it… the people of Thorold: 1, Energy Minister Smith: 0.

    While I support numerous campaigns related to biodiversity loss and climate change, I usually feel like I want to do more. So when I found out that the Ontario Government was planning to build a new gas-fired power plant where I live, in Thorold Ontario, the fight suddenly got personal. I felt like it was my responsibility to step-up and do something!

    What we did

    So, I got to work – contacting environmental groups, local, provincial and national, who I knew were already battling Ontario’s plan to build new gas plants in the province. Working alongside these organizations, we raised the visibility among local residents of the proposed gas plant project, requesting they write Thorold City councillors urging them to oppose the project. 

    Together, we ran digital ads, published articles with local papers, and delivered flyers to neighbourhoods close by the plant. Over two hundred letters were sent to city councillors, and all of it seemed to have had an effect as Thorold City Council established a special council meeting to focus on the proposed gas plant project.

    At this point we knew we were making progress and had a shot.

    The Council Meeting

    The meeting was held on September 19th. After Northland Power presented their project proposal, two businesses – Walker Industries and Bioveld Canada – rather uncomfortably spoke about their love of “renewable natural gas” and Northland Power.

    On the opposing side, Jack Gibbons from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and three local residents spoke to the reasons to vote against the project. Points around the environmental, health and financial implications of the project were common throughout all of our presentations. 

    Presentations focused on the importance of fighting climate change in communities, a lack of need for gas peaker plants, and maybe most impactful of all, a personal plea from a resident who lives in the shadow of the city’s existing gas plant. He said they can see the brown smoke during the day and can even feel the particulate matter falling on them when they are out at night. His heartfelt speech really moved the councillors, giving even the climate deniers among them a solid reason to vote against the new project proposal.

    The vote

    In the end, the councillors unanimously agreed to oppose the proposed gas plant based on three fundamental concerns:

    1. Bad for the planet: The need to stop increasing GHG emissions that is making climate change worse.
    2. Bad for the budget: from spending hundreds of millions of dollars on peaker plants that will rarely ever be used; to burning gas when renewables are a cheaper way to provide electricity; and the increase of dirty power generation which will scare off future investors / businesses.
    3. Bad for our health: Local air pollution and the resulting health issues to local residents.

    When the councillors were asked to provide their perspectives on the project proposal, 3 councillors made it clear that they are very concerned about and want to take action against climate change, while all of the councillors stressed the need to protect local residents from increased air pollution. It should be noted that two councillors stated that they do not believe in climate change or to mitigating solutions, however they opposed the project regardless. The mayor summed it up by saying that the council meeting was a great example of democracy in action, where opposing sides spoke civilly about their reasons to support or oppose the project.

    A couple of councillors challenged Northland Power to come back to city council with an alternative proposal to meet the IESO’s request utilizing renewable energy or energy storage.

    A win for Thorold and its residents

    At the end of the day, I saw the residents of Thorold, along with Thorold City Council sending a clear message to the Ontario Government, with a not-so-subtle request to find another way to meet Ontario’s energy needs. We do not want to continue with the status quo, increasing our GHG emissions and air pollution. We want a forward-thinking government doing the right things for the right reasons.

    As a local organizer opposing the gas plant proposal, I am pleased with the decision from city council to oppose the gas plant project and am proud to live in a city that does what is right for its citizens. I am grateful for the amazing work of 2 local environmental groups (Biodiversity and Climate Action Committee Niagara and 50by30 Niagara), who helped to motivate and mobilize local residents to voicing their concerns and urge city councillors to oppose the project. I am very thankful for the support provided by Ontario Clean Air Alliance and Environmental Defence who provided us with the information and materials we needed for the fight, and for spreading the message even further than we could.

    The work still left to do

    All that said, we need to recognize that all we accomplished last week was to remain standing still and not make the climate crisis any worse. We must now take steps to turn this ship around and reduce Canada’s GHG emissions – which must include the halting of all further expansion of fossil gas infrastructure in the region, province and country. Instead of heating buildings and water with “natural” gas, we must utilize other existing technologies such as heat pumps and district heating. Then we will be actually making progress in our fight to mitigate climate change.

     

    Mark holds a Computer Engineering degree and worked 25 years in IT and Telecom before becoming increasingly aware of and engaged with the environmental movement within Canada, specifically working to address climate change and biodiversity loss.

    The post Thorold Rejects New Gas Plant Proposal appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Water companies ordered by regulator Ofwat to cut bills due to poor performance

    On 26 September, Ofwat – the water services regulation authority – ordered water companies in England and Wales to return a combined £114m to customers for failing to meet performance targets.

    Companies fell short in terms of basics like customer satisfaction, pollution, and improving infrastructure. The regulator’s decision also comes amid a long-running scandal over privatised water firms pumping raw sewage into waterways.

    Ofwat: water firms fall short

    Ofwat usually ranks water providers as ‘leading’, ‘average’, or ‘lagging’. However, this year no company achieved a place in the leading category. 
    Of the 17 firms in England and Wales, seven fell into the bottom rank. These were Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Dŵr Cymru, Southern Water, Bristol Water and South East Water. The list of companies ordered to give money back to customers is longer still: 
    • Affinity Water
    • Anglian Water
    • Dŵr Cymru
    • Hafren Dyfrdwy
    • Northumbrian Water
    • SES Water
    • South East Water
    • South West Water
    • Southern Water
    • Thames Water
    • Yorkshire Water
    Thames Water, in particular, was ordered to return the highest amount at £101m. This is despite having recently secured a £750m cash injection from shareholders, allowing it to narrowly dodge renationalisation. Other firms will still be allowed to put their prices up next year. 
    Ofwat chief executive David Black said in a statement:

    The targets we set for companies were designed to be stretching – to drive improvements for customers and the environment.

    However, our latest report shows they are falling short, leading to £114 million being returned to customers through bill reductions.

    While that may be welcome to billpayers, it is very disappointing news for all who want to see the sector do better.

    Government oversight?

    The government announced back in July that any company and individual polluting rivers and other ecosystems would be liable for unlimited fines.

    Regarding Ofwat’s findings, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey said:

    Today’s Ofwat report is extremely disappointing… The fact that not a single water company is classified as ‘leading’ is unacceptable.

    We have written to the CEOs of every water company in the lowest category of today’s report and my ministerial team and I will meet them in person to scrutinise their improvement plans.

    She went on to add that:

    billpayers should know we require the worst performers to return money directly to customers through their bills.

    However, at odds with Coffey’s ‘scrutiny’, the Tories themselves have a distinct track record of spending public money on waterway pollution measures. Back in April, the environment secretary announced that public money would be used to fix the sewage-dumping mess caused by these very same privatised water companies.

    Likewise, less than a month ago the government announced plans to strip back waterway protections for housing construction. This would also land the taxpayer with the bill to double investment to £280m, simply to counter the additional discharge from the new homes.

    Small comforts

    As such, Coffey’s promise of oversight and reduced bills rings somewhat hollow. Both water companies and the government have demonstrated their willingness to use public money to plug holes in privatised infrastructure.

    So, while some customers might see a reduction in their bills, it’ll be little comfort if their money is still being used to fix the water companies’ problems through taxes rather than direct payments. Either way, England and Wales still lose out every day whilst their water is in private hands.

    Featured image via Wikipedia/Ofwat, resized to 1910*1000, liscensed for the public domain. 

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Thousands call on European development bank to divest from fossil fuels

    Thousands have called on a major European development bank to end its Euro billions in financing for fossil fuels. Between 2018 and 2021, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has funded fossil fuel projects around the globe to the tune of €2.9bn.

    EBRD financing fossil fuels

    EBRD is one of Europe’s foremost multilateral development banks (MDBs). Countries jointly set up MDBs to provide financing to poorer nations for economic development projects. Alongside the EBRD, leading MDBs, for example, include the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank.

    Under the EBRD’s current policy, which it adopted in December 2018, the bank rules out financing for certain types of fossil fuels. For example, this includes thermal coal and upstream oil projects. Upstream refers to projects at the point of extraction.

    Then in 2022, the financier extended this limit to encompass funding for upstream gas projects as well. The EBRD announced this as part of a new methodology. Specifically, it aimed to align its financing with the Paris Climate Agreement 1.5°C goal.

    However, as it stands, the EBRD will still finance midstream and downstream oil and gas projects. For instance, these could include refineries, pipelines, and power plants. The EBRD is currently developing its new policy to guide investments through to 2028. Nonetheless, at present, the strategy keeps the door open to EBRD financing for these types of fossil fuel projects.

    EBRD fossil fuels causing ‘carbon lock-in’

    The loophole calls into question the EBRD’s claims to Paris alignment. In fact, the international financial institution is considering support for multiple fossil fuel projects. These include the Greece-North Macedonia gas interconnector – a 56km pipeline that will carry fossil gas between Thessaloniki in Greece to North Macedonia.

    Non-profit CEE Bankwatch has estimated that the pipeline would generate 3m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions each year. Significantly, this would constitute over half of North Macedonia’s 2030 carbon budget. The group argued that this is creating “carbon lock-in”. In essence, the further development of fossil fuel infrastructure maintains a country’s dependence on a carbon-emitting energy source into the future.

    Moreover, campaigners have also previously placed the EBRD under fire for financing Europe’s biggest fossil fuel project. In 2017, the MDB provided a half-billion US dollar loan to the southern gas corridor project. The gas pipeline carries the fossil fuel from gas fields in the Caspian Sea to southern Italy.

    In this instance, the EBRD awarded the US $500m loan to the repressive Aliyev government of Azerbaijan. A key human rights watchdog, which guides international financial institutions on their development funding, criticised the MDB for this loan. In early 2017, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative suspended Azerbaijan’s membership over rights concerns.

    MDBs are all at it

    Similarly, another leading MDB has continued to fund fossil fuel projects despite Paris alignment pledges. The World Bank Group (WBG) and its financial lending arm the International Finance Corporation have poured finances into a liquified natural gas plant in Pakistan and dirty energy power plants in Bangladesh.

    More recently, local communities and non-profits in Indonesia have filed a complaint against the WBG for investing in a large-scale polluting coal-fired plant on the island of Java. Like with the EBRD, campaign groups have called out the WBG for “locking” countries into a future with fossil fuel infrastructure.

    Undermining the Paris Agreement

    As a result of the EBRD’s Paris non-alignment, non-profits organised a campaign to demand it divest from fossil fuels.

    Campaign groups 350.org and the CEE Bankwatch Network launched an online tool to galvanise public involvement in the EBRD’s consultation on its latest strategy. Through this, over 6,200 members of the public voiced their opposition to the bank’s continued support for dirty energy projects.

    In a press release about the campaign, CEE Bankwatch Network’s Gligor Radečić said:

    The EBRD cannot claim it is aligned with the Paris Agreement while it is financing fossil gas projects. Using limited public funds to finance fossil fuels clearly undermines the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach.

    Climate crisis “already here”

    Of course, the impacts of the climate crisis are intensifying. On 14 September, NASA announced that the summer of 2023 was the hottest on record.

    The announcement followed a season of wildfires and extreme heat across the globe. A deadly blaze in Greece – where, without irony, the EBRD is financing the large new gas pipeline – was the biggest the European Union (EU) has ever recorded.

    As the Canary’s Glen Black reported, Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said that Greece’s wildfires show that the climate crisis is “already here”. Evidently, it’s about time major development institutions started acting like it.

    Feature image via ReubenGBrewer/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The corporations making up the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure hold a prolific record of ecological and human rights violations

    Corporations wrecking the planet and harming frontline communities have added a new chapter to their greenwashing playbook. On 18 September, a prominent business-led initiative published the final draft of a new set of corporate disclosure guidelines.

    As part one of this two-part series detailed, rights groups and environmental non-profits have been raising the alarm on the corporate capture of the of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure (TNFD) from its inception.

    Now, the Canary has identified that communities, non-profits, and media outlets have made close to 300 rights allegations in just 10 years against the companies running the taskforce. What’s more, financiers involved in the initiative have ploughed hundreds of billions of dollars into climate-wrecking and ecocidal companies.

    Prolific rights violators in the TNFD

    The non-profit Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) hosts a ‘company response mechanism’. This draws together allegations of human rights violations from community accounts, non-profit publications, and global media reports.

    Specifically, where records of abuse exist and companies have not publicly made a statement, the BHRRC offers the corporation the opportunity to respond. While some violations might pertain to the same project, the database treats each response request as a separate instance of allegations against a company, because they derive from different sources.

    The Canary found that the corporations comprising the TNFD collectively held at least 288 separate response requests in the ten years from 2013 to present. We included subsidiary businesses in the count.

    Notably, five companies in the TNFD were responsible for over 50%* of these allegations. Mining giant Anglo American, food conglomerate Nestle, MS&AD Insurance Group, fossil fuel firm Ecopetrol, and agrichemical multinational Bayer topped the list.

    Anglo American, for instance, appears in the database regularly for its former shareholdings in the controversial Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia. The open-pit mine has displaced Wayúu Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities from their ancestral territories. Moreover, its operations have endangered the health of nearby inhabitants.

    Meanwhile, Nestlé’s prolific rights-violation record spans its food commodity operations across the globe. The company has multiple reports of rights violations in its palm oil supply chain across Brazil, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Colombia. Similarly, campaign groups have linked its coffee and chocolate product supply chain to forced labour, and harmful impacts on Indigenous communities in multiple countries.

    Pouring finances into ecocide

    Overall, the BHRRC database held fewer allegations against financial institutions compared to companies from more extractive industries. Instead, these financiers have funnelled huge sums to these corporations engaging in ecocide.

    Collectively, TNFD banks have invested US $33.8bn into big agribusiness companies. Notably, these companies often harvest commodities with high risks of deforestation.

    The Dutch Rabobank topped the list of forest-risk financiers. It accounted for nearly a third of the total investments by TNFD members. In particular, the bank has poured hefty sums in the form of loans and credit into agri-giants like Cargill, Bunge, Olam International, and Louis Dreyfus.

    In particular, Greenpeace Netherlands and independent research group Profundo exposed Rabobank’s role in funding deforestation in Brazil. Between 2000 and 2022, Rabobank channelled nearly US $10bn to high-risk deforestation products including soy, beef, pulp, and paper.

    What’s more, a number of the TNFD banks have also appeared in the Banking on Climate Chaos report. The annual publication by a group of non-profits documents the 60 worst banks for financing fossil fuel companies. The TNFD financiers in the report included the Bank of America, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Rabobank, and UBS. Together, they have funded ecocidal oil and gas corporations to the tune of nearly US $650bn.

    ‘Empowering global corporations’

    Shona Hawkes, a senior advisor at the Rainforest Action Network, expressed her disappointment at the shortcomings in the TNFD’s final publication:

    At heart, the process has focused on empowering global corporations – including members of its corporate taskforce who are failing to act on their own environmental or human rights harms. Nothing in the TNFD framework challenges a corporation’s right to keep 100% of the profits it may make off environmental or human rights abuses. Nor does it uphold nature’s own right to exist. It is full of loopholes that can allow for rampant greenwashing and its reporting takes a generalized form that means that company claims cannot be checked against realities on the ground.

    As Hawkes pinpointed, the voluntary guidelines fall short of holding corporations to account for their environmental and human rights harms.

    Evidently, the corporations leading the TNFD initiative have every reason to attempt to evade scrutiny. Given the scale of the TNFD taskforce members’ rights violations alone, it’s clear that the new framework is severely unlikely to protect communities and nature – but it might just save the corporate bottom-line.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Tanenhaus, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Green groups call out new nature disclosure framework as another exercise in corporate greenwashing

    A coalition of rights groups and environmental non-profits named the Forests & Finance Coalition have called out the “corporate greenwashing” of a new high-profile market-led initiative to address the biodiversity crisis.

    On 18 September, a forum of big-name businesses launched the final draft of a key nature-focused corporate disclosure framework. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure (TNFD) is a set of recommendations and for a company to self-report on its environmental impacts. This initiative claims to:

    provide decision-useful information to capital providers and other stakeholders

    In essence, financiers can review what a TNFD member has disclosed under the framework. This can then inform their decision to fund a company or its projects.

    In this first article of a two-part series on the TNFD, we’ll examine how non-profits have highlighted the blatant corporate capture of the initiative, which undermines its purported biodiversity aims.

    Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure

    The TNFD has its roots in the January 2019 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland. A who’s who of private sector premiers attend the annual forum. During the meeting, attendees conceived the idea for the framework. Given this, it’s perhaps also unsurprising that corporations and their non-profit and international institutional collaborators have strongly shaped the TNFD’s recommendations from its inception.

    Utilising funding from the multilateral Global Environment Facility (GEF), a coalition of partners including Global Canopy, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) formally announced the scheme in July 2020.

    As the Canary has previously documented, the WWF has a history of cosying up to large corporations. Likewise, the UN has exhibited a tendency to pander to the private sector. The TNFD does not break from this tradition.

    Significantly, senior executives and representatives from 40 companies across a broad range of sectors – from finance, to fossil fuels and food – comprise the core taskforce. These include, for instance, financial heavyweights like BlackRock, BNP Paribas, and HSBC. Agribusiness goliaths such as Bayer and Bunge, alongside Nestlé and AB InBev, also sit on the taskforce. As a result, these company executives have largely designed the new guidelines.

    The fox guarding the henhouse

    Of course, environmental groups have pointed out that the TNFD is another shameless example of the fox guarding the henhouse. On the publication of the final framework, Global Forest Coalition campaign coordinator Kwami Kpondzo noted that:

    Many people are shocked to learn that the TNFD taskforce – TNFD’s decision-making body – is solely made up of global corporations.

    Naturally, these companies themselves have chequered histories of environmental and human rights harms. From child labour in the supply chains of Nestlé subsidiary Nespresso, to Bayer’s sale of highly hazardous ecocidal pesticides, these companies are awash in allegations of abuse.

    And that’s the crux of the matter: the very corporations ransacking the natural world for profit have spearheaded the TNFD framework.

    Sidelining communities

    Moreover, Oda Almas of the Forest Peoples Programme pointed out a particular issue the self-reporting structure of the TNFD presents:

    It is hard to recall any major case of human rights abuse or environmental destruction that has been exposed by company self-reporting.

    In other words, the TNFD’s premise is that companies can be trusted to report their own harms against nature. Instead however, Almas argued that it is usually:

    the communities negatively affected who have to sound the alarm bells and expose corporate wrong-doing.

    Naturally, as Kpondzo expressed, the TNFD has “sidelined” these frontline communities and defenders. The core taskforce, for instance, doesn’t include a single member from these communities. What’s more, the TNFD doesn’t even require companies to report on allegations of human rights abuse.

    Risks to business

    Ultimately, the rights groups argued that the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure’s (TNFD) framework will fall short of protecting people and biodiversity from exploitative business. However, and despite consistent challenges by these groups, the initiative has pushed ahead to publish its guidelines.

    What’s more, the United Nations Environment Programme has hinted at a likely core aim of the framework. In the UNEP’s announcement of the TNFD launch in 2021, it stated:

    More than half of the world’s economic output – US$44tn of economic value generation – is moderately or highly dependent on nature. The recorded extinction of 83% of wild mammals and 50% of plants therefore represents significant risk to corporate and financial stability

    The TNFD’s final framework also seems to echo this sentiment. In its executive summary, the new guidelines remarked that:

    There is growing evidence that this poses risks for businesses, capital providers, financial systems and economies, and that these risks are increasing in severity and frequency.

    In other words, the TNFD’s invariable goal is to reduce ‘risks’ to the profit margins of its private sector endorsers.

    The framework for future regulations?

    Moreover, Forests & Finance has voiced its concern that the TNFD intends for governments to adopt the flawed framework as public policy. For example, in early planning documents the WWF posited that:

    Strong government engagement is vital to help translate the TNFD framework and recommendations into public policy development.

    The Rainforest Action Network has argued that allowing corporations to set the template for future government regulation sets a “dangerous precendent”.

    As it stands, the TNFD enables corporations to co-opt concrete regulatory action on the biodiversity crisis. Enshrining a weak self-regulatory corporate-led framework into national legislation could let corporations off the hook for rights violations. Worse still, it would do so while conveniently greenwashing their public image for potential investors.

    Next, in part two of this article series, the Canary will delve further into the scale of TNFD members’ rights violations and impacts on nature.

    Feature image via Achmad Rabin Taim/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • EVs May Produce Higher Levels of Ocean and Air Pollution Through Tire Emissions

    As gas-guzzling cars are replaced by their electric counterparts, tailpipe emissions are on the decline. But cars have other negative impacts on environmental health, beyond what comes out of their exhaust pipes. One of the bigger, and lesser known, problems is tire pollution — or “tire and road wear particles,” in industry terminology. Tires shed tiny particles with every rotation.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Citizen Groups Sue EPA for Using Black Neighborhoods as “Sacrifice Zones”

    Environmental citizen groups in Louisiana, West Virginia and Texas are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after Black communities in these states were excluded from an effort to tighten regulations regarding cancer-causing air pollution. The lawsuit alleges that majority-Black communities in these states are disproportionately burdened with facilities that are major sources of…

    Source

  • Statement on Thorold City Council’s Unanimous Vote Against a New Gas Plant in Niagara

    Keith Brooks, Programs Director, Environmental Defence

    Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Huron-Wendat – We applaud the members of Thorold City Council for voting unanimously against this unnecessary and highly polluting project. Ontario doesn’t need more gas plants. We are encouraged to see communities like Thorold recognize this and stand up for their residents. In order to ensure a safe and stable future, we need more clean energy, not more fossil power. Respected bodies like the International Energy Agency have been clear – there is no room for new fossil fuel infrastructure if we want to hold warming to 1.5 degrees.

    Along with their contribution to larger climate change impacts, gas plants also cause local air pollution – mainly nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. In voting against this proposal, Thorold has both helped with the global project of decarbonization and taken an important step to protect air quality in Thorold and the broader Niagara region.

    Additionally, Thorold’s vote against this project will also save Ontarians hundreds of millions of dollars. Based on other gas plant contracts recently inked by the Independent Energy System Operator (IESO), the gas plant proposed for Thorold could have cost over $700 million over the term of the contract. This, despite the project developer – Northland Power – saying that they anticipate the plant would produce “little energy” and act as a backup option. It would have been a giveaway to fossil fuel project developers – not so different from other giveaways this province has handed out to other developers in recent months.

    Thorold has set an example that other municipalities should follow if prospective gas-plant developers come calling.

    Background information:

    • In October of 2022, the IESO recommended Ontario procure up to 1500 MW of new gas-fired power generation. The Ministry of Energy directed the IESO to proceed with the procurement.
    • Multiple studies have concluded that Ontario does not need more gas to meet growing electricity demand.
    • Northland Power had proposed to build a 198 MW gas-fired power plant in Thorold, Ontario, in Niagara Region, which they intended to bid into the IESO’s upcoming LT1 procurement process.
    • At the request of the Ministry of Energy, the IESO stipulated that project proponents would need a municipal resolution of support in order to secure a contract. The IESO was also directed to structure contracts to ensure power plants would still be paid even if forced to shut down due forthcoming federal Clean Electricity Regulations.
    • Thorold City Council’s vote against the power plant proposal effectively blocks Northland’s proposal from going forward.
    • In a recent capacity procurement, energy storage projects ended up coming in at lower costs than new gas plants.
    • If the IESO is successful at procuring the 1500 MW of gas that it was seeking, this could cost rate payers over $4 billion, despite the fact that these plants are supposed to rarely be used and will have to be shut down before their contracts expires due to incoming federal Clean Electricity Regulations.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement on Thorold City Council’s Unanimous Vote Against a New Gas Plant in Niagara appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water Is Undercounted by EPA, New Study Finds

    environmental regulators are failing to adequately account for how extensively vulnerable communities are exposed to contaminated drinking water, a new study has determined. From 2018-2020, one in ten people in the United States were exposed to water quality violations that could impact their health, the study found. And roughly 70% of those affected are considered “socially vulnerable” under…

    Source

  • Small Island States Say Global Ocean Treaty Must Cover Climate Pollution

    Do greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels count as ocean pollution under the Law of the Sea? That’s the question that nine small island states that are low emitting but extremely vulnerable to the climate crisis have asked the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in a landmark hearing that began Monday in Hamburg, Germany. “We come here seeking urgent help…

    Source