Sorry Kids... latest research shows that increasing temperatures adding to extreme heat due to burning fossil fuels has a disproportionate impact in killing young people under 35 years. While this research is based on Mexico, it is highly likely it applies more widely, although there will be some caveats.
One of the authors of the study, Danny Bressler, said: "The concentration of heat-related mortality among younger people is quite disproportionate compared to other causes of death. Although just 16% of overall deaths from all causes are among under 35 year olds, 75% of heat-related deaths are among under 35 year olds. When we consider lost life years, the age-specific inequality is more extreme: 87% of heat-related lost life years occur among under-35-year-olds."
Meanwhile Australia's Environment Minister is set to approve another 3 coal mines pushing up the temperature and endangering our children's future.
Heat disproportionately kills young people: Evidence from wet-bulb temperature in Mexico (December 2024)
Australia has long tried to be two things at once – a trusted friend to Pacific nations in a bid to reduce China’s influence, and a giant exporter of fossil fuels. This diplomatic tightrope has become increasingly hard to walk, as Pacific nations see climate change as an existential threat.
This week, Australia’s government was forced to make a choice in a very public forum. It chose fossil fuels.
Disappointed by the slow pace of United Nations climate talks, Vanuatu and other Pacific nations launched a case at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands to clarify the obligations countries have to prevent harm to the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations.
While international climate negotiations are often conducted behind closed doors, this case is being broadcast in public. We can clearly see the arguments Australia has laid out and the countries it has aligned itself with.
In the courtroom on Monday, Australia sided with major emitters and fossil fuel exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and China to try and minimise their legal liability in contributing to climate change.
Outcome summary: Negotiations fail to conclude, but some progress made. Still wide divergencies in some areas. A resumed session in 2025 agreed to.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Global Plastics Treaty is holding its fifth meeting in Busan, South Korea from 25 November to 1 December 2024 to prepare a treaty by the end of 2024. This meeting is it.
Global Plastics pollution is an escalating Crisis that interlinks with the Biodiversity Crisis and Climate Crisis. The Health and environmental impacts of plastics, microplastics and nanoplastics are of increasing concern as more research is done.
The process for a Global Plastics Treaty was started in March 2022 at the resumed fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2). See my reports of INC1, INC2, INC3, INC4.
A Zero Draft of the treaty was prepared at INC4 with elements of both common rules for all parties, and a nationally driven policy framework, and many procedural issues still to sort out. As this zero draft contained some 1500 brackets, in the interim the Secretariat has prepared a non-paper to try to streamline negotiations start.
IISD/ENB have a highlights report available with a summary of Final Plenary discussions.
They agreed to adjourn INC-5 in Busan, Republic of Korea, and convene a resumed meeting at a later date. Some countries wanted it early in 2025 not to lose momentum, while others like Saudi Arabia called for later - July or August.
delegates agreed to use the Chair’s revised Text as a basis for negotiations at the resumed fifth session of the INC (INC-5.2), and also other texts.
INC Chair Vayas resassured delegates that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
While supporting it as the basis for negotiations at the next meeting, several delegations underlined that the Chair’s Text should remain open to additions and deletions. They noted that the text did not always reflect the discussions held during the week and excluded some countries’ “red lines.”
The Arab Group and the Russian Federation noted that the Non-Paper containing the draft text of the Chair of the Committee, circulated on Friday, 29 November 2024, better reflected discussions, but were willing to engage on the basis of the Chair’s Text
“We are not leaving Busan discouraged,” shared the EU, encapsulating the mood during the closing plenary.
Several delegations spoke, with Mexico and Rwanda speaking on behalf of 95 and 85 countries, respectively, to call for a strong treaty, which would include articles on production, hazardous plastics, and chemicals of concern.
Kuwait, who spoke for the Like-Minded Countries, expressed concern that “at this session, expedient progress was undermining trust and inclusivity,” and noted “attempts to stretch” the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution mandate beyond its limits.
After report backs from the 4 contact group co-chairs, Chair has proposed the latest non-paper as a starting point for further negotiations at a resumed session 5.2 at some time in the future. Various Parties spoke in plenary, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, India, Ghana, Rwanda, Mexico, Uruguay, European Union, Finland. Panama, Russian Federation, Iraq, Canada, Cuba, Grenada, Samoa, Japan, Vanuatu, Jamaica, Armenia, Tonga, UK. Powerful statements by Rwanda on behalf of 85 countries and Mexico for 95 countries for an ambitious legally binding full-life-cycle treaty that addresses chemicals of concern.
2 December - International talks on curbing plastic pollution fail to reach agreement (Guardian)
Chair releases latest text. Some Delegates and Policy Experts have responded with this press release (GAIA):
Plastics Treaty INC-5: Global South Delegates and Civil Society Speak Out Delegates and Policy Experts React to the Chair’s Proposed Treaty Text
Busan, South Korea – Global South delegates and civil society leaders spoke at a press conference at BEXCO Convention Center this afternoon, to share their outlook on the negotiations thus far and what it means for the Global South. In the hour before the press conference, the Chair released his latest paper, which proposes text for the treaty to serve as a basis for the final bout of negotiations.
Arpita Bhagat, Plastics Lead at GAIA Asia Pacific states: “The Chair’s latest text is unacceptable to the majority of Global South countries and the billions of people they represent: people who are fighting for their lives for a strong treaty. Nor is it acceptable to people harmed by plastics in the Global North, including environmental justice, front and fenceline communities, and Indigenous Peoples who have long been sidelined in the process. It is not a reflection of the will of the vast majority of Member States, who support ambitious measures in a legally-binding, global instrument. Once again, as throughout this process, the Chair has bent to the will of the petrochemical states while dismissing the demands of the majority, in a completely non-transparent, exclusionary process. This is a matter of life and death, especially for Global South communities. Member States will not roll over and play dead. As long as ambitious countries hold on to their principles, civil society will have their backs.”
Cheikh Ndiaye Sylla, National Focal Point for Senegal, states, “This version of the text is…not acceptable…For life cycle, we have to negotiate this from the polymer, meaning the production. It is legally binding as per the title…No text is better than bad text.”
Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, Negotiator for Ghana, states, “The whole world is looking up to us…they are expecting something better that will protect the environment, human health, our brothers and sisters, and our young populations….So we are not here to accept anything short of an ambitious treaty.”
These elements in the new text are particularly problematic:
On core obligations:
Plastic production (“Supply”): the Chair’s text does not represent the strong language Panama and more than 100 other countries proposed, including a global target on production reduction; it is full of weak text options, such as referring to a reduction target as “aspirational.” This critical article must be strengthened with national targets.
Chemicals of concern: The Chair has stripped away systematic controls on toxic chemicals from this article, where we need the strongest measures to address the fundamental threat posed by chemicals of concern.
Waste management: the waste hierarchy has been removed; and “energy recovery” – code for waste-burning technologies– remains.
On means of implementation:
Financial mechanism: At least 126 countries support an independent, dedicated fund– the most widely supported provision in the instrument– yet the Chair’s text undermines it with weak, optional language that fails to provide adequate funds, such as through a polymer production fee.
The treaty infrastructure is weak:
No right to vote: The Chair’s text fails to give countries the right to vote, ensuring further paralysis of the process. This is not the “start and strengthen” treaty that we were promised.
The week in Busan started with petrochemical states threatening to derail the process if Member States exercised their right to call for a vote, which brought us to this point. Continuing the work in an INC 5.2 will only be worthwhile with a transparent process where states put an end to the tyranny of the minority.
As we confront the potential failure of the negotiations, we remind Member States that, as they themselves have stated, no deal is better than a bad deal.
Panama makes an Impassioned plea alongside all high ambition countries at the global plastic treaty negotiations in Busan. We can’t be dragged down by those with low ambition. Treaty must reduce plastic production & address chemicals of concern. Its not a waste a management treaty
30 November 2024 - Saudi Arabia Leads Pushback Against Global Plastic Treaty (New York Times) "Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers of petroleum, which is used to make most of the world’s plastic, have pushed back against measures that would address plastic pollution by placing curbs on excessive plastic production. The Saudis and their allies have also said they oppose any treaty that would start to list and phase out chemicals present in plastic that are thought to be harmful to health."
November 30 - Day 6
According to Break Free from Plastic: "The sixth day of #INC5 negotiations for a #PlasticsTreaty have been spent in informal closed door meetings that are extending to the late evening."
Marine Biology Professor Rebecca R Helm reports: "Citizens at the UN plastics negotiation are no longer allowed in rooms. This is, in some ways, abnormal. But it’s also not unexpected. Rumor has it a key sticking point is on capping plastic production. Now we wait."
Will INC-5 deliver a treaty? With only a day left for delegates to negotiate, the answer to this question generated mixed responses. Amidst the “aura of confusion” at the venue, some country delegates felt that the light at the end of the tunnel was “getting brighter.” “There are some articles that we can already agree on,” referring to issues such as information exchange; public information, awareness, education and research; final provisions; and the establishment of the conference of the parties (COP), subsidiary bodies, and the secretariat. Others, however, were more cautious, sharing that the clean articles need to be attached to strong language on production, design, waste management, and finance. “We are not there yet.”
For some “stakeholders,” though, being excluded from the talks at this crucial stage sent a “dark signal.” At a press conference of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics on Saturday, Indigenous representatives stressed, “We have been silenced and strategically undervalued” in these negotiations. “How can you talk about a just transition, when we are not given a space at the table?” Another delegate shared, “we are rights holders in this process,” and “this treaty must guarantee not only our participation in the negotiations, but also in the implementation of measures to tackle the onslaught of plastic pollution, which disproportionately affects our communities, relatives, and Mother Earth.”
Will it be a plastics treaty, or a plastic waste treaty? “It is worrying that at this stage in negotiations, we are still unsure,” opined one participant. The text circulated on Friday has elements that, if agreed, “could give us a plastics treaty, with upstream measures related to production and design.” On the other hand, “if we cannot agree on these, we will go home with a plastic waste treaty,” she said, noting that this would be “a real waste.” Another delegate was overheard lamenting, “If after all this, we end up with a plastic waste treaty, which countries can implement domestically if they want, does it even make sense to call this an international treaty? Will it have been worth our efforts?”
One seasoned delegate wondered out loud whether there was still time to change the working modalities of the negotiations. “By now, we have come to the end of the line on contact-group-like negotiations, with every state commenting on every line,” drawing attention to the fact that the informal closed-door negotiations seem like “contact groups, just without the transparency.” He described several formats that could “push negotiations over the finish line,” including the round-table Vienna setting, which would bring the Chair and key coalitions together in face-to-face discussions. He wondered whether, “we may have run out of time” to switch gears in this way.
With the informals going on upstairs, delegation after delegation held bilaterals with the INC Chair downstairs, perhaps in a bid to break the deadlocks on core issues. However, at the end of the evening, it was still unclear whether “we’ll be shedding happy tears on Sunday, or weeping.” In hushed conversations throughout the day, some were heard discussing “plan B options,” in the event that INC-5 does not deliver a treaty. “Who will fund a resumed meeting of the INC, if it comes to that?” queried one delegate. “Should we keep hope alive?” asked one delegate. The jury is still out.
30 November 2024 - Greenpeace challenges petrochemical tanker as Busan plastics treaty talks enter final stage (Greenpeace)
Greenpeace International activists have boarded a tanker that is set to load toxic plastic chemicals from South Korea’s Hanwha TotalEnergies complex. They are urging governments to resist fossil fuel and petrochemical industry interference in the talks and to deliver a treaty that firmly cuts plastic production, which on current trends is set to triple by 2050.
“We are taking direct action here today – stopping this plastic shipment – to urge world leaders to listen to the voices of the millions of people around the world, along with scientists and businesses – who are demanding they cut plastic production to stop plastic pollution,” said Alex Wilson, Greenpeace UK climb team volunteer.
They continued, “As we protest here, petrochemical industry lobbyists are out in force in Busan. They are using their power, money and access to try to ensure that the treaty fails to do what it must – turn off the tap of plastic production.
Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen delivered his third annual Climate Statement to Parliament today.
The Government set an interim emissions target of 43 percent emissions reduction by 2030 based on 2005 levels. And in this statement Chris Bowen says that the Government is projected to meet 42.6 percent reduction by 2030, and be able to exceed this target with extra measures to come.
To help achieve this a Renewables target of 82 percent by 2030 was also set. The intrduction of the Capacity Investment Scheme means that more renewables are being invested in and built which will enable this target to be met.
The government has introduced a New Vehicle Emissions Scheme that will start from 1 January 2025 and progressively reduce light vehicle transport emissions.
The speech outlines the positive actions on renewables and energy transition already taken, critical minerals and steps to become a renewable energy super power.
But the elephant in the room is that Australia continues to approve new coal and gas projects for the export market, which is not compatible with a safe climate.
The continued approval of new coal and gas projects primarily for the export market. Scope 3 emissions are not included in Australia's greenhouse gas inventory
The Safeguard Mechanism to reduce emissions of the largest polluters is built upon carbon offsets, which have integrity issues.
Australia's carbon accounting is highly reliant on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) which indicates that there has been minimal reductions in many sectors other than the electricity sector.
Australia has not addressed Fossil Fuel Tax subsidies currently running at about $14 billion per year
This being said, the Opposition is pushing forward with a Nuclear plan that would be hugely expensive, risky, would expand domestic gas use, and would fail to meet the gap between when coal plants retire in the early 2030s and the earliest Nuclear plants coming online in the 2040s. Adding Nuclear to the energy mix would continue with greenhouse gas emissions from gas well past the 2050s, so would breach the Net Zero 2050 target. Nuclear is a distraction from both Labor and Coalition Parties supporting fossil fuel coal and gas expansion.
The latest Victorian Greenhouse gas emissions report is for 2022 and contains the headline details for Victoria's emissions profile. It was tabled in Parliament by Climate and Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio.
The report is 16 pages long, and contains considerably less detail than reports from previous years which broke down data more finely and were often over 6o pages in length. So only headline details are shown, which is very disappointing and may hide particular problems in some sectors.
This is also a Net zero emissions which takes into account Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) carbon sequestration. This is notoriously difficult to estimate accurately.
While the long term trend is decreasing emissions, in 2022 emissions actually increased. This is most likely a rebound effect with regard to recovering from the Pandemic.
Total net emissions in 2019 were 86.8 MT CO2e, in 2020 86.2MT, in 2021 80.4MT, and in 2022 84.7MT. So between 2021 and 2022 net greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) increased by 4.3 megatonnes.
Negotiators at the COP29 climate conference in Baku have struck a landmark agreement on rules governing the global trade of carbon credits, bringing to a close almost a decade of debate over the controversial scheme.
The deal paves the way for a system in which countries or companies buy credits for removing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world, then count the reductions as part of their own climate efforts.
Some have argued the agreement provides crucial certainty to countries and companies trying to reach net-zero through carbon trading, and will harness billions of dollars for environmental projects.
However, the rules contain several serious flaws that years of debate have failed to fix. It means the system may essentially give countries and companies permissions to keep polluting.
The UN climate conference, the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP28) is ocurring in Baku in the Azerbaijan from Monday November 11 to Friday November 22, 2024 (but may also go into overtime).
This is my digital diary of Australia at COP29 in Baku. CIEL used a metaphor to describe this COP outcome: “COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it’s not trash that’s burning— it’s our planet. And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."
President-Designate for COP 29 is Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan's Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. Azerbaijan is a repressive state with a poor human rights record according to Human Rights Watch in leadup to a meeting in Bonn in June.
Australia is represented at the ministerial level by Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen. See Tracking Australian Ministers and Australian pledges at COP29. Australia is lobbying to hold COP31 in 2026, and an announcement of host is likely in Baku. The city of Belem in Brazil is holding COP30 in 2025.
I'll be including detail from IISD Earth Negotiating Bulletin for each day. I might pluck details from the full report, especially relevant to Australia, and will post the 'In the Corridors" section which provides a concise 'vibe' summary on the negotiations. I might include details from other sources as needed.
24 November 2024 - COP29 closed at 5.31am Sunday morning with a climate finance deal that many say is not nearly enough, pushback by Saudi Arabia to undermine transition away from Fossil Fuels and ramping up renewables energy transition.
Climate Finance: The NCQG. The US$300 billion funding deal by 2035 is a floor, but from multiple sources. No Distinct allocation for Loss and Damage. Includes a stretch target with private investment capital of $1.3 Trillion. Many developing countries were not happy with the deal, and some were outright furious.
Biodiversity deleted. The ink is barely dry on the texts from biodiversity COP16, where governments agreed to bring climate and nature conventions together. Yet at COP29, all mention of biodiversity deleted from nearly every text. Almost all mention of ecosystems and food systems has been stripped from latest texts, despite it being the cheapest form of mitigation, adaptation and resilience.
COP31 2026 decision: between Turkey and Australia pushed to the SBTI meeting in Bonn in June 2025
International Carbon credit trading: On Saturday evening, rules were agreed on how countries can create, trade and register emission reductions and removals as carbon credits after years of deadlock on article 6 of the Paris agreement. It paves the way for top emitters such as Germany and Japan to buy cheap removals and reductions from decarbonisation schemes in developing countries such as renewable energy schemes, rainforest protection or tree-planting, counting them towards their own targets. Trading could begin as soon as 2025 once technical bodies have agreed on the finer details. (Guardian) But there are many dangers in carbon trading in terms of credit integrity, additionality, double counting, transparency issues, and outright fraud.
If countries break UN carbon market rules when trading emissions with one another, the consequences, according to the new texts, are getting called naughty and being allowed to carry on regardless. Carbon Market Watch described the poor accountability and limited transparencyas a cowboy carbon market: “disappointing set of rules for a disappointingly open framework,” (Carbon Market Watch)
See also
Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance (CLARA) response on approval of Article 6 Market Mechanisms (CLARA Media Release PDF)
Kate Dooley from Melbourne University: Guest Post: After nearly 10 years of debate, COP29’s carbon trading deal is seriously flawed (Climate Citizen)
Isa Mulder, Policy Expert, Carbon Market Watch:
"The outcome of Baku leaves the framework for Article 6.2 dangerously loose and opaque, tailor-made for those pushing to turn it into a free-for-all. Instead of strong measures to ensure accountability, we're left with minimal guidance that puts all the chips on name-and-shame rather than meaningful oversight. Meanwhile, the adoption of Article 6.4 rules on removals risk repeating the inadequate measures of the voluntary carbon market that guarantee permanence in name only. And thus, the question emerges whether Article 6 carbon markets will help to achieve our climate goals at all."
Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):
“With the adoption of lax rules for transparency and accountability, governments now face the real possibility of having created a Paris-sanctioned carbon market that could be worse for people and the planet than the scandal-ridden voluntary carbon markets. With the gaveling of standards on methodologies and removals on the opening day of the COP, the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism has flung open its doors to removal activities that are nothing more than a dangerous distraction and then failed to ensure additional controls are put in place to keep it from causing harm. Going forward it will be essential to ensure this mechanism enforces its standards and, as the text says, considers other relevant environmental agreements that place a moratorium on geoengineering. Paying to pollute will never be a climate solution, and carbon markets will never be climate finance, but rather a climate disaster.”
Here is an explainer on Article 6.2 and 6.4 by Down To Earth from India:
IISD / Earth Negotiations Bulletin summarised the outcome:
Update: Plenary reconvened after midnight for parties to elect Adonia Ayebare (Uganda) as new Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and Julia Gardiner (Australia) as new SBI Chair. After another long suspension, parties reconvened to consider the issues that remained outstanding up to that point. Eventually they:
set a goal of at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing countries, from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources, with developed countries taking the lead, and developing countries encouraged to make contributions on a voluntary basis;
provided further guidance on the definition of indicators for assessing progress towards the Global Goal on Adaptation;
extended the enhanced Lima work programme on gender for 10 years; and
provided guidance on future global dialogues and investment-focused events under the Mitigation Work Programme.
They could not reach agreement on, among others, the dialogue on the implementation of the outcomes of the Global Stocktake and on the just transition work programme, with discussions to continue at the Subsidiary Bodies’ sessions in June 2025.
With regard to the new finance goal, India, Bolivia, and Nigeria registered their concerns and characterized the goal as an “insult that did not represent developed countries taking the lead.” The LDCs lamented the lack of ambition in light of developing countries’ needs, exclusion of loss and damage, and missing minimum allocation floors for the LDCs and SIDS. Pakistan identified critical gaps in the overall package and, pointing to the next session of the Subsidiary Bodies, called for a return to the negotiation table with renewed commitment.
The European Union, Environmental Integrity Group, AOSIS, the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), and the Umbrella Group lamented the lack of progress on taking forward the outcomes of the Global Stocktake and urged rapid progress on energy transition.
The Baku Climate Change Conference closed at 5:31 am, on Sunday, 24 November.
Adam Morton at Guardian Live said that Australia was not happy with parts of the decision and the way Saudi Arabia acted:
Some developed countries have made barely veiled swipes at Saudi Arabia over its obstruction of the text including an explicit restatement of some of what was agreed in Dubai last year – particularly, goals of transitioning away from fossil fuels, tripling renewable energy by 2030 and doubling energy efficiency by the same year.
Instead, the text just refers to paragraph 28, in which the transition commitment was made, calling on countries “to contribute to the global efforts referred to in paragraph 28”.
Speaking on behalf of the umbrella group of developed countries, Australia said it was disappointed that some countries had “stalled or stymied discussion” on those issues. But they said that countries were accelerating towards the global goal of net zero emissions and moving to capture the economic opportunities of renewable energy to create jobs for their communities.
Read about the collusion between the Presidency and Saudi Arabia: Revealed: Saudi Arabia accused of modifying official Cop29 negotiating text. Exclusive: News of changes to usually non-editable document ‘risks placing climate summit in jeopardy' (Guardian)
India was furious when the decision was gavelled, accusing the process of being stage managed. Adam Morton at Guardian Live reports:
India has responded furiously to the climate finance goal being quickly gavelled through by the president, saying it is a “paltry sum” and it was not given the opportunity to express its strong opposition to it.
In a fiery address, Chandni Raina, the Indian representative said: “India opposes the adoption of this document and please take note of what we have just said from the floor of this room. We seek a much higher ambition from the developed countries.”
“We had informed the president we had informed the secretariat that we wanted to make a statement prior to any decision on the adoption but however - and it’s for everyone to see – this has been stage managed and we are extremely disappointed with this incident.
“We’ve seen what you have done … gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UN system and we would want you to hear us … we absolutely object to this unfair means of adoption.”
She was scathing of developed countries for failing to act to address the climate crisis, and said they should agree to advance their net zero targets and become net negative soon after. She said there was a lack of trust in the system.
“Unfortunately, the paper on the NCQG does not inspire trust that we will come out of this grave problem of climate change.”
The president said India’s position would be noted, but the acceptance of the climate goal stands.
We had more hope that the process would protect the interests of the most vulnerable and those with the least capacity. Nevertheless, we once again have shown how the global community can come together to find solutions that serve humanity.
Make no mistake. The urgency for taking climate action to address the ever-worsening impacts of climate change remains. The level of ambition for taking climate action needs to be much, much higher. And it is our great hope that the additional finance administered as a result of the new goal will help get us there.
Climate Action Network Issued the following statement on the COP29 result:Betrayal in Baku: developed countries fail people and planet
Climate Action Network wholeheartedly rejects the outcome of COP29 in Baku. The linchpin of the climate talks was public finance, and developed countries did not deliver despite their historic responsibilities. The figure for the climate finance goal is wholly inadequate, the quality of finance is missing with no equity or justice reflected in the text, and the direction of finance from developed to developing countries did not come through. The goal completely missed the mark in responding to the needs of developing countries.
Developed countries are to blame – they have used the US election result as an excuse to push through this weak outcome. The US has been trying to dismantle the Convention and the Paris Agreement for years, Trump or no Trump.
Two years of progress on Just Transition, where Parties were starting to shape a common vision, were trashed due to bad process, showing dismay for the millions of people concerned about their lives, jobs, livelihoods. In COP29, justice was not served on any front.
Erin Ryan, Senior International Campaigner, Climate Action Network Australia said,
“We travelled across oceans but high-income countries and the COP presidency barely moved an inch. An annual finance goal of USD $300b by 2035 leaves us where we started: with low-income countries struggling to shoulder the rising costs of a climate crisis they never caused. Countries like Australia need to realise that you can’t draft an ambitious text on fossil fuels with one hand while tightening the world’s purse strings with the other.”
Lisa Cliff from Better Futures Australia said on BlueSky:
"On COP29: Baku was a win for Fossil Fuel lobbyists—more watered-down compromises, with climate finance commitments & the mitigation agenda failing to align with science & justice. A few steps back from COP28's acknowledgement of the need to Phase Out Fossil Fuels"
Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement: Wealthy Nations Imperil Global Climate Goals with Grossly Insufficient COP29 Finance Agreement. Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and a lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, attending the U.N.’s international climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan.
“The Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency’s ineptitude in brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy. The last ditch, highly insufficient agreement barely came together deep into overtime and its low amount, quality, and unambitious timeline raises significant concerns that future financial flows will fail to measure up to what’s needed.
“Rich nations, including the United States and E.U. countries, have exercised brute power here at COP29 to force a deeply unfair and inadequate climate finance outcome that imperils the science-based goals of the Paris climate agreement. Despite their starring role in causing the climate crisis, this wealthy coalition of the unwilling collectively offered a grossly insufficient $300 billion annually by 2035, with a weak provision to review in five years and numerous loopholes to evade responsibility for ensuring the majority is grant-based public finance. This is nowhere near what lower income nations need to quickly transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy and protect people from the ravages of the climate crisis they’re already enduring. By reneging on their climate finance responsibility and continuing to boost fossil fuel interests, richer countries are stymying the world’s ability to cut heat-trapping emissions quickly and unjustly foisting the costs of deadly climate extremes onto those who have contributed the least to the problem...."
Former US vice-president Al Gore, a prominent voice on climate matters for decades, highlighted the deep flaws in the UN Climate Change Conference process:
While the agreement reached at Cop29 avoids immediate failure, it is far from a success. On the key issues like climate finance and the transition away from fossil fuels, this is — yet again — the bare minimum.
We cannot continue to rely on last-minute half measures. Leaders today shirk their responsibility by focusing on long-term, aspirational goals that extend far beyond their own terms in office. To meet the challenge of our time, we need real action at the scale of months and years, not decades and quarter-centuries.
This experience in Baku illuminates deeper flaws in the Cop process, including the outsized influence of fossil fuel interests that has hobbled this process since its inception. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been particularly obstructive. Putting the future of humanity at severe risk in order to make more money is truly disgraceful behaviour. Reforming this process so that the polluters are not in effective control must be a priority.
24 November 2024 - Centre for International Environment Law (CIEL) described the result in a metaphor: “COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it’s not trash that’s burning— it’s our planet. And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."(CIEL)
24 November 2024 - Revealed: Saudi Arabia accused of modifying official Cop29 negotiating text (Guardian)
The Fossil of the day Daily count for COP29. The best of the worst....
Day
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Dishonourable Mention
Solidarity Award
Nov15
G7: United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom
Nov 16
Italy
Nov 18
South Korea
Finland
Palestinian People
Nov 19
Russia
Costa Rica
Nov 20
Europe
Switzerland
Ukraine
Nov 21
USA
Nov 22
Azerbaijan
Ray of the COP Columbia
Colossal Fossil
Annex 2 Countries (Developed Countries) Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America
The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate talks in 1999, in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations climate change negotiations members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), nominate and vote for countries judged to have done their ‘best’ to block progress in the negotiations in the talks, or in a wider context for actions in their own country at odds with implementing climate action n alignment with the Paris Agreement and its targets..
This year Australia moved backwards two places in the annual Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). The national experts cited the still substantial fossil fuel subsidies and policies to incvrease Fossil Fuel production.
The report lists 3 key outcomes:
Australia drops two ranks in the current CCPI, to 52nd and among the low-performing countries
Fossil fuel subsidies have declined and been redirected to other industries. However, some major fossil fuel subsidies remain.
Key demands: stop approving and signalling support for the expansion of fossil fuel production
The National Experts explained:
Australia dropped to 52nd and among the low-performing countries. It receives a medium rating in GHG Emissions, low in Renewable Energy and Climate Policy, and very low in Energy Use.
Australia’s 2030 national target is to reduce GHG emissions by 43% from 2005 levels. The country plans to achieve net zero by 2050. The CCPI national experts welcome these targets and Australia is now nearly on track to achieve its 2030 emissions reduction target.
The experts further note that since the election of the current government in mid-2022, fossil fuel subsidies have declined and been redirected to other industries. However, some major fossil fuel subsidies remain, including the Fuel Tax Credit scheme which subsidies the fuel taxes paid by a range of sectors, including fossil fuel mining. Australia is among the 10 countries with the largest developed coal and gas reserves, and is currently planning to increase its production.
Australia's Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen delivered Australia's national climate statement to COP29 in the High Level Segment Plenary (Resumed).
Not a bad statement on some of the changes being made in energy transition and economic transition associated with decarbonisation by Australia, but it is in what was not said that is important.
The continued approval of new coal and gas projects primarily for the export market. Scope 3 emissions are not included in Australia's greenhouse gas inventory
The Safeguard Mechanism to reduce emissions of the largest polluters is built upon carbon offsets, which have integrity issues.
Australia's carbon accounting is highly reliant on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) which indicates that there has been minimal reductions in many sectors other than the electricity sector.
Australia has not addressed Fossil Fuel Tax subsidies currently running at about $14 billion per year
Australia signed the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP) at COP28 and had a year to implement its commitment. This partnership was established in Glasgow at COP26. CETP pledges cover Development Finance institutions and export credit agencies. Australia must unveil its CETP implementation plan (Jubilee Australia)
Don't get me wrong. Setting a 2030 target of 43 percent reduction on 2005 levels was important, as was the target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030. The Made in Australia program and funding is as important as the Inflation Reduction Act in the US for unlocking economic decarbonistion and transformation.
Australia is increasing climate finance, but at a trickle and very far from our fair share as a developed country. In this speech Bowen announced a much welcomed $50 million to the Loss and Damage Fund. And most of Australia's climate finance is in the form of grant funding which is the most effective and doesn't burden developing nations feeling the impact of climate change with more debt.
The Action Aid report Seizing the Moment: A new Climate Finance Goal that delivers for the Pacific communicates civil society’s expectations of the Australian and New Zealand Governments when negotiating the new global climate finance goal at the UN Climate Conference in November 2024. "Australia and New Zealand’s climate finance contributions are falling short of need. Australia’s commitment to provide AUD 3 billion over 2020-2025 is well short of its estimated fair share of the USD 100 billion goal, which is AUD 4 billion per year. Both countries have redirected substantial portions of their climate finance from existing aid budgets, undermining climate and development action across the region." (Action Aid)
And don't get me started on the fantasy nuclear plan by Peter Dutton and the Liberal and National Parties. This would come at huge public expense, and increase in electricity costs, a huge delay of 15-20 years, and would require coal and gas continue in the grid well past 2050. It is not a solution but a distraction and a delay. Bowen understands Nuclear should have no role in Australia.
Chris Bowen as the co-chair with Egypt of finance discussions will be very busy in the final days of COP trying to broker a deal on the new climate finance target and the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) (See this explainer)
Donald Trump has won the US presidency for a second non-consecutive term. Plus Republicans have also won control of the Senate. Counting is still under way for the House of Representatives but it is likely the Republicans may have a majority. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 conservative majority. With few checks and balances a Trump administration will have free reign.
Is this bad? Yes. According to the Guardian, "The impact of Donald Trump enacting the climate policies of the rightwing Project 2025 would result in billions of tonnes of extra carbon pollution, wrecking the US’s climate targets, as well as wiping out clean energy investments and more than a million jobs, a new analysis finds."
A very detailed summary account on the international meeting addressing Ozone Depleting substances with the Vienna Convention, and Montreal Protocol. This is unlikely to make mainstream news, but provides important climate outcomes, and demonstrates the international treaty system when it is operating effectively. This is the little climate treaty that keeps on mostly delivering outcomes.
Thanks to the IISD/Earth Negotiations Bulletin who report on all the international negotiations, providing transparency.
The 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (COP13) and 36th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (MOP36) ocurred 27 October – 1 November 2024 in Bangkok.
"Despite a few small setbacks and some late nights, delegates agreed that COP13/MOP36 was a resounding success. Parties managed to address a record number of agenda items in the most contact groups ever established, and adopted important decisions to keep the Convention and Protocol strong and successful.
UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP16 meets from October 20 - 27 in Cali, Columbia. This is a Live article actively updated during October.
Participants will review the state of implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including through alignment with national biodiversity strategies and action plans as well as resource mobilization. At the previous summit, COP15, which was held in Montreal in December 2022, countries agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The GBF is a set of four goals to 2050 and 23 targets to 2030 with the overarching mission of reversing the decline of biodiversity around the world by 2030. (Read the goals and targets here: The Montreal Moment for Biodiversity: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted)
Australia submitted its 6th national report to the CBD in 2020, and is due this year to submit a new national report.
Australia's climate is worsening, driven by accelerating climate change, according to the latest assessment by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.
Buckle up people. Expect longer, more intense extreme heat events. Heat events kill more people than all other extreme weather events combined.
Australia has now warmed by 1.51 degrees Centigrade.
South West Australia and South East Australia will get drier. But when it rains, heavy short term rain events are becoming more intense. That means more flash flooding. It also has iimplications for agriculture.
The hotter, drier climate means longer fire season, a more extreme fire season. We are seeing more pyrocumulonimbus (Pyro CB) fires when a bushfire starts generating its own weather firestorm. Larger fires mean more smoke that can travel for hundreds even thousands of kilometres with the air pollution particulates affecting people in distant towns and cities. More people are dying from smoke related conditions.
This page discusses CHOGM 2024 and climate change and the outcomes.
A New report launched at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Samoa reveals the stark imbalance in fossil fuel extraction across the Commonwealth and highlights the dominance of three wealthy nations—Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—in driving fossil fuel expansion and emissions.
The report Uncommon Wealth: Fossil Fuel Expansion in the Commonwealth Dominated by Three Wealthy Countries - was commissioned by the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative and based on data from the Global Registry of Fossil Fuels.
It shows that despite representing only 6% of the Commonwealth’s population, Australia, Canada, and the UK are responsible for over 60% of emissions generated from extraction across Commonwealth countries since 1990.
Currently the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is ocurring in Apia Samoa with Australia being called upon by numerous Island nation leaders and ministers to stop approving new fossil fuel projects and to start phasing out fossil fuels. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong are there to rebutt and pacify the pointed diplomatic attacks.
Meanwhile Minister for Energy and Resources Madeleine King is in Japan talking up and selling Australian gas expansion and repeating some lies such as Australian gas is needed to keep the lights on.
This is the fifteenth annual report by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) on the Emissions Gap. The warning is clear in 2024 that not enough is being done to reduce emissions which will result in catastrophic impacts down the line. Key take aways from the report:
It is still technically possible to meet the 1.5°C goal, but only with a G20-led massive global mobilization to cut all greenhouse gas emissions, starting today
Continuation of current policies will lead to a catastrophic temperature rise of up to 3.1°C
Current commitments for 2030 are not being met; even if they are met, temperature rise would only be limited to 2.6-2.8°C
What needs to be done?
Nations must collectively commit to cutting 42 per cent off annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 57 per cent by 2035 in the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) due in February 2025 – and back this up with rapid action – or the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal will be gone within a few years.
Risk of Collapse of Ocean Circulation (AMOC) underestimated: Continued greenhouse gas emissions could trigger a regional cooling around the North Atlantic warned the Icelandic Met OfficeAn Open Letter by Climate Scientists, including 3 Australian climate scientists, was presented to the Nordic Council of Ministers warning of AMOC collapse "risk has so far been greatly underestimated. Such an ocean circulation change would have devastating and irreversible impacts especially for Nordic countries, but also for other parts of the world."
Global impacts may include "a shift in tropical rainfall belts, reduced oceanic carbon dioxide uptake (and thus faster atmospheric increase) as well as major additional sea-level rise particularly along the American Atlantic coast, and an upheaval of marine ecosystems and fisheries"
Australia committed two years ago in 2022 at the landmark Convention on Biodiversity COP15 meeting in Montreal to hold an inaugural Global Nature Positive Summit. This occurred in Sydney 8-10 October.
Unlike the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at Biodiversity COP15, the Nature Positive Summit proved to have substantial greenwash from the Australian and NSW state Governments, as they continue to approve and subsidise new coal and gas or logging of native forests.
The Federal Labor Government had been elected in May 2022 with a commitment to take strong climate action and to revamp and overhaul Australia's ineffective national environment laws.
A report on State of the Australian Environment had its publication delayed by the previous Coalition Government. This report showed most ecosystems are declining or in a dire state which needs to be addressed, and is already impacting human society and economics. This expert report summaried at The Conversation, argued that:
Australia’s environment is generally deteriorating
Climate change threatens every ecosystem
The importance of Indigenous knowledge and management to deliver on-ground change
Environmental management isn’t well coordinated
Environmental decline and destruction is harming our well-being
Since Labor came to power in May 2022 we have seen some changes made such as a Water Trigger and Nature Repair Market, further changes to establish an Environment Protection Agency and Data Information Agency at a standstill in the Senate with the Government unwilling to compromise with the Greens and crossbench. Most substantive changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act have now been pushed out to beyond the next election. A fundamental fail by this Labor Government.
The Coalition has refused to bargain on a bipartisan basis and has signaled its support for business as usual regarding land clearing, forestry and mining. They too refused to act on the Samuel Review to upgrade ther EPBC Act. Ambition to address biodiversity crisis and species extinction is failing from both major parties.
The Nature Positive Summit seems to be more talkfest as Government policy ambition fails to address the nature negative policies already in place and driving biodiversity loss. The conference was held a week after three new thermal coal mine projects approved by the Federal Government that will result in up to 1.5 billion tonnes of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
The Labor NSW government can't stand high either as Forests NSW is about to log native forests 400km north of Sydney in the Bulga State Forest, which includes habitat for ther endangered Greater Glider. The Federal Government Regional Forestry Agreements with the states exclude application of the present ineffective national environment laws to protect endangered species.
Australian Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. She represented Australia on the Palestine/Gaza/Israel debates, but also on climate action in various forums including Australia's National Statement to the General Assembly.
Climate action was part of her speech of Australia's National Statrement to the General Assembly, including advocacy to hold COP31 in 2026, while back in Australia Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek approved three thermal coal projects on 24 September 2024 in a move criticised as ‘the opposite of climate action’ (Guardian) Merri-bek outrage over coal mines decision- coal approval last straw. (CAMerribek) Rising Tide blocks Newcastle coal train (ABC News)
I came across this TED talk by accident, produced mid August 2024.
"We're nearly halfway through the 2020s, dubbed the most decisive decade for action on climate change. Where exactly do things stand? Climate impact scholar Johan Rockström offers the most up-to-date scientific assessment of the state of the planet and explains what must be done to preserve Earth's resilience to human pressure."
This 20 minute video really is worth watching to inform you to step up climate action.
Australia experiencing a late winter season heatwave breaking temperature recotds.
Australia is in the grip of a late winter season heatwave with temperature records falling across most states. Southern States are experiencing storm fronts with strong winds some times in excess of 100km/hr.
Australia: late Winter #heatwave temperature records broken for Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory and South Australia. In Qld, Birdsville’s running maximum temperature at 3:30pm AEST on Friday was 39.6°C. This is roughly 15°C above average for this time of year and Qld’s highest winter temperature on record. (Weatherzone)
Sydney Airport has broken its winter record of 31.1°C this Friday, reaching 31.6°C at 2:48pm. In August 2024 to date, Sydney's running average maximum has been 21°C, some 3.1 above the long-term average. (Weatherzone)
In Queensland, Rental advocates warn heat-related deaths will increase if Queensland regulations aren't tightened. The ABC News report summarises that:
Parts of Queensland are predicted to see a record-breaking 36-degree end to winter.
Advocates want efficiency regulations to protect renters and public housing tenants.
The state government says their reforms have made renting fairer and lifted housing standards.
The Pacific Islands Forum is underway in Tonga. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres made a speech to the opening of the forum.
He highlighted in his speech (see below) the need for a just transition for the phaseout of fossil fuels and called for all members of the G20 to step up and lead, by phasing out the production and consumption of fossil fuels and stopping their expansion immediately.
While Australia was not explicitly named, we are the only member state of the Forum involved in fossil fuel expansion and export.
"When governments sign new oil and gas licenses, they are signing away our future." said Guterres.
He also called for national climate plans – Nationally Determined Contributions – to be submitted by next year, aligning with the 1.5-degree upper limit of global heating.
Guterres also launched two new reports from Tonga highlighting the acceleration of sea level rise and the impacts already occurring on low lying Pacific Nations.
