Blog Archives

The EU Green Deal – Will President Von Der Leyen’s shoot for the moon land her in the gutter?

26/1/2020

By Viola King Forbes

Recently appointed President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen has pledged to make climate change her signature focus. This is reflected in her inaugural plans for the ‘EU Green Deal’, a promise to make Europe the first climate neutral continent by 2050.

The highly ambitious aims of the Green Deal echo those of US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Von Der Leyen has gone so far as to analogise it as ‘Europe’s man on the moon moment’.
Ten goals laid out by the commission include the overarching objective of climate neutrality, to be enshrined in climate law proposed in March of this year. This will be accompanied by aims for:

A circular economy
Renovation rate increase
Healthier agricultural systems
Transport emission neutrality by 2030
Technological innovation investment
Maintenance of external diplomatic relations.

However, it is upon the analysis of these diplomatic intentions that the first cracks appear in the president’s vision. The scope of the deal is evident in its attempts to shift an entire continent toward the system change advocated by activists including economist Kate Raworth who argues that to create real change we must ‘build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete’. This belief, reflected in Von Der Leyen’s statement that fossil fuel growth based models are ‘out of date and out of touch’, and that in a new era, ‘no one will be left behind’ acknowledges the role of social justice within climate change action. Unfortunately, this alliance of social and environmental causes provides sceptics with an arsenal of reasons to suggest the pledges are no more than fairy tales.

Larry Elliott, The Guardian’s economics editor, and mastermind behind the first whispers of a Green New Deal in 2007, warned that the scheme, in its matured stage in the US and now also in the EU, was at risk of becoming ‘a theory of everything’, perceivable not as ‘green’, but in fact ‘red’.
Labelled by many merely as a communist manifesto, the deal has already faced attacks, the commission accused of ‘tyrannical’ behaviour, ‘sacrificing life in pursuit of utopia’. Such criticism parallels Poland’s decision to opt out of the 2050 emissions target. Concerns over energy security in a country reliant on coal for 80% of its electricity reflect a lack of faith in the EU’s ability to source promised €100billion transition funds.

However, the commission also faces criticism for not having done enough. Dr Tadzio Muller of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation stated three issues with the deal.

As a set of targets that are to be achieved by future generations, the deal is as meaningless as past pledges which were equally confounded by a lack of accountability.
The deal is described as Europe’s new ‘growth’ strategy, despite increasing consensus blaming pursuit of economic growth for the climate crisis.
Thus, the commission is attempting to have the best of both worlds, marrying equity, sustainability, and economic expansion within one fantastical proposal which is in conflict with itself.

Anticipating such accusations of idealism from multiple angles, Von Der Leyen has attempted to placate all. With action conditional on protection against competition, this ‘deal by Europe, for Europe’ therefore runs the risk of meeting the same fate as previous climate action by attempting compromise.
Many deals, from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement, and the most recent Conference of Parties in Madrid, demonstrate a consensus on the urgent need for climate action, but have gone little further. Likewise, the new EU Green Deal demonstrates the right intent. It acknowledges the action need to effectively address the climate crisis which will requires efforts on a scale comparable to putting man on the moon. Yet, evidence of hesitation remains.

Two scenarios await us. Either we face a climate disaster in pursuit of protectionism-fueled growth, or we attempt an economic transformation founded on sustainability. Turmoil is imminent regardless; until legislators accept this, gridlock remains inevitable.

The EU Green Deal represents progress; change is possible, and in the long term, beneficial. However, if we want control over our future, there must be no compromises to ideals of economic growth. Attempting to fulfill every promise will only result in us failing to deliver them all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBU48JHJ-4M&t=48s
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/archive/news-archive/3493.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/audio/2019/apr/23/how-the-green-new-deal-was-hatched-in-a-london-bar-podcast
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/europe-climate-crisis-european-green-deal-growth
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/12/12/eu-releases-green-deal-key-points/
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_19_6714
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/13/european-green-deal-to-press-ahead-despite-polish-targets-opt-out

0 Comments

Should we care about plastic straws?Individual vs systemic action event summary

26/1/2020

0 Comments

( Kirsty O'Connor/PA )

What is the appropriate level of action to fight climate change? Individual, or systemic? This subject of fierce debate was discussed at our event last Monday "Should we really care about plastic straws?".
The speakers Dr Tina Fawcett and Dr Thomas Hale acknowledged the argument for some that focusing on individual action represents not only a complete waste of time, but also a danger:

The “Mississippi syndrome”: if you focus on the little boats going upstream, you may lose sight of the big polluting boats that keep going downstream.
It may come with a form of “purity test”: “you can’t be a good person if you don’t do X Y or Z”. As a consequence, this may disqualify some people from working towards a systemic change, just because of some feature of their personal behaviour (e.g. flying for their holidays).
We don’t all have the same needs. The plastic straw is a good example of a thing we should not blindly demand the disappearance of: some people do need them (e.g. due to some disability). We shouldn’t go too fast saying “nobody needs what I don’t need”.

Both of the speakers, however, refuse this binary way to frame the debate – as if you couldn’t both act for systemic change and change your individual behaviour. In particular, they underline the following advantages of undertaking individual action:

It helps you being credible when you talk. When a speaker calls for change but flies and eats meat, it may do a lot of harm. Conversely, making changes to your lifestyle that are consistent with your ideology makes your demand for systemic change much more persuasive.
The main sources of emissions in the UK are transport, food, accommodation- things which ultimately connect with our everyday life. Thus, there is an unavoidable connection between the individual and the systemic changes we call for.
It contributes to change the social norm.
It makes you more knowledgeable, about what the best things to be done. Thus, Dr. Fawcett mentions that a lot of her research is about house renovation; renovating her own house helped her to identify further elements to be taken into account.
It also makes you feel empowered: however huge the crisis may be, at least you’re doing your best to act against it.

But how? How can individual actions participate to a more systemic change? Dr. Hale enumerates at least four mechanisms:

Consumer power: what we buy, don’t buy… NB: To be an effective customer, however, you obviously need money. Therefore, although an effective tool, it is not available to everyone.
Employee power. We’re not only consumers: we work, and we can 1) try to choose our company/institution in accordance with our values, plus 2) try to act from within our company/institution to make it change its behaviour.
Normative action. According to Dr. Hale, slavery ended because the social norm evolved. How do you enact this change? By talking, and by reinforcing the message with concrete actions that lend it moral credibility. However, whatever the degree of commitment of the person you’re talking with, it is crucial to first listen to the person and their values. People coming from very different normative backgrounds may feel concerned with the climate crisis, (e.g. conservatives may be particularly concerned with the preservation of their neighbourhood). Dr. Fawcett mentions the work of the organisation Climate Outreach (https://climateoutreach.org/).
Political engagement. Pressuring parties is one of our most effective ways, because they control the policies and that’s what going to make the biggest change. There is in the UK a consensus through the parties about the climate crisis, which is not common. There is room then to talk to everyone and try to get all parties to fulfil their commitments – Dr. Fawcett mentions the project “Talking to the centre-right”.

0 Comments

Carbon Markets-COP25 leaves Article 6 of the Paris Agreement unresolved

17/1/2020

0 Comments

By Olivia Oldham

Source: Conservation in a Changing Climate

What is Article 6?
Article 6 allows cooperation in order for states to achieve their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement (art 6.1). Article 6 sets up three mechanisms for cooperation:

Bilateral agreements between states to trade carbon credits (art 6.2)
A centralised, global carbon credit trading scheme, known as the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), which states and the private sector can participate in (art 6.4)
- To be agreed upon by the Conference of Parties (COP)
Non-market approaches (art 6.8)

The important thing to understand is that although the Paris Agreement briefly sets out the existence of these cooperation mechanisms, it doesn't detail the rules of how they will operate. Negotiations on these rules were meant to have concluded at COP24 in Poland in 2018, but they were carried over to COP25 in Madrid last December.

How do carbon markets work?
Carbon markets represent the idea that if an entity (a state, or sometimes a corporation) reduces its carbon/greenhouse gas emissions, it can claim a credit. It can then sell that credit at an agreed rate to another entity, enabling it to continue to emit at a higher rate.

Carbon markets are said to have several advantages. For example, they are argued to make global emissions reductions cheaper, theoretically enabling higher ambition/faster reductions. This is said to be because wealthier countries can pay less wealthy countries to implement mitigation measures which are cheaper to carry out in that country. One study showed that carbon markets can be used to achieve nearly double the emissions reductions aimed for in countries' current NDCs at no additional cost.

Whether or not carbon markets actually achieve their potential, they're pragmatically important because they are included in the emissions reduction plans of most countries – though the UK has stated that it doesn't plan to use carbon credits to reach its net zero goal.

Potential pitfalls of carbon trading?

Double counting: emissions reductions being counted both by the 'host' entity (i.e. the entity that actually made the reductions) and the 'recipient' entity (i.e. the entity that bought the credits)
- Explicitly prohibited by art 6.5
Fraud
No real reductions: difficulties with quantifying emissions reductions means that in the past, carbon credits have been earned for projects that haven't actually reduced emissions. One European Commission-sponsored study found that only 2% of projects undertaken under the equivalent mechanism to the SDM under the Kyoto Protocol are actually likely to ensure real additional emissions reductions that are not overestimated
- 'Hot air': when countries set under-ambitious targets, and then claim the 'extra' reductions (which are not additional, as they would have happened anyway) as credits

What happened in Madrid in December at COP25?
Matters on the table included:

How to ensure no double counting
How to ensure an OMGE ('overall mitigation in global emissions') rather than emissions in one place just being offset somewhere else without a net benefit
Whether and how to allow carbon credits accrued under the previous carbon trading scheme under the Kyoto Protocol to be 'carried over'
Whether specific reference should be made to human rights in the rules – as previous carbon offsetting regimes have resulted in large scale human rights abuses

No decision was reached despite COP25 going 44 hours overtime, a new record. In large part, this was because a few key countries dragged their feet on some of the key issues under discussion, in particular about the ability to use 'carry-over' Kyoto credits (Brazil & Australia in particular), and the inclusion of loopholes enabling double-counting (particularly Brazil).
In the end, all that was decided was that negotiations will more or less start again at an intersessional meeting in June, and at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2020, under 'Rule 16' of the UN climate process.

How drastic is the failure to negotiate Article 6?
The lack of agreement is deeply frustrating, yes, and it stymies the initiation of a new global carbon credit trading mechanism. But there is still some hope:

Article 6.2 allows for bilateral agreements, so countries wanting to get on with it now could still do so. The problem is, they won't have the benefit of any UN guidelines or rules, meaning that the potential pitfalls of carbon trading might rear their ugly heads.
31 countries, a bloc led by Costa Rica known as the Unconventional Group, signed up to the San Jose principles—minimum standards to ensure the integrity of the global carbon market in the absence of any COP-sanctioned rules
- These principles rule out double counting, and prohibit the use of carry-over credits
Some argue that failing to reach an agreement is better in the long term than reaching a bad agreement which undermines the purpose of the whole Paris Agreement

Overall, it's very important that a functioning set of rules which achieves the purpose of article 6 to enable "higher ambition in [countries'] mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity" (art 6.1) is agreed upon at COP26. However, the lack of agreed rules doesn't actually prevent ambitious, committed entities from using cooperation strategies to reduce their emissions already.

Resources

0 Comments

<<Previous

the ocs blog

The EU Green Deal – Will President Von Der Leyen’s shoot for the moon land her in the gutter?

Should we care about plastic straws?Individual vs systemic action event summary

Carbon Markets-COP25 leaves Article 6 of the Paris Agreement unresolved

OCS Media Team

Archives

Categories