COP28: Loss and Damage fund $475 million agreed, but $525 billion needed

The following two paragraphs come from a detailed exposition of the loss and damage fund in the Indian Express.

“The loss and damage fund first announced during COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, last year, is a global financial package to be overseen by the World Bank to ensure the rescue and rehabilitation of countries facing the cascading effects of climate change.

“The term refers to the compensation that rich nations, whose industrial growth has resulted in global warming and driven the planet into a climate crisis, must pay to poor nations, whose carbon footprint is low but are facing the brunt of rising sea levels, floods, crippling droughts, and intense cyclones, among others. The changing climate has impacted lives, livelihoods, biodiversity, cultural traditions, and identities”.

The need of the hour is several trillion dollars, according to ‘Finance for Climate Action’, a UN-backed report – cover right. (London School of Economics).

On the opening day of the COP28 climate conference in Dubai, a loss and damage fund to help vulnerable countries cope with the impact of climate change has been officially launched.

• The initial funding is estimated to be $475  million —
• host UAE pledged $100 million,
• Abu Dhabi promised $100 million (precisely one-eighth of the profits generated by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in 2022 (Porritt).
• the European Union promised $275 million
• $17.5 million from the US
• and $10 million from Japan.

Jonathon Porritt was not impressed:

He wrote in his blog about “The waves of phoney positivity emanating from CoP28 in Dubai”, explaining that the financial damage caused by climate change every year is already around $400 billion – 1,000 times as much, and rising every year. He continued:

“But research shows that 55 vulnerable countries have suffered $525 billion combined climate crisis-fuelled losses in the last 20 years. The number is estimated to reach $580 billion per year by 2030.

“The only outcome from CoP28 that would get massive media attention would be a firm agreement to phase out (not phase down) our use of fossil fuels within a fixed period of time. The chances of that are close to zero”.

=

COMMENT

JN: I think that the problem is money, understood as a universal measure of “value”. The fossil fuelled part of the economy is not Wealth anymore, it is Illth and doesn’t have a future. Wealth is now renewable clean energy, sustainable resources, and the regeneration of natural systems. In all countries we must not wait, but pull out our money and work from making Illth and put it into making Wealth.

o

o

Will COP28 decide to “phase out” or “phase down” fossil fuels?

The FT editorial board reflects that the backdrop to COP28* is ‘inauspicious’: global temperature records have been repeatedly broken, war is blighting the Middle East and Europe, the global economy is still scarred by the pandemic, the cost of living has risen significantly and voters have supported climate sceptics in the Netherlands and Argentina.

It notes that picking Sultan al-Jaber, who runs the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) to be the COP president was contentious, though an FT analysis concluded that UAE state companies and funds could be linked to almost $200bn in investments around the world, mostly in green energy, in the year before the summit.

More than 100 US and EU lawmakers demanded the removal of al-Jaber in May  (Reuters) and this week leaked documents appeared to show that the UAE planned to use its role as COP host to discuss fossil fuel deals with 15 nations.

On Wednesday Sultan al-Jaber strongly denied that his country planned to use the summit to further its commercial interests, insisting he had never seen or used the leaked talking points.

He insisted that a significant number of global oil and gas companies were now ready to align around targets of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The FT recommends that national oil companies such as Adnoc which account for more than half of global oil and gas production and nearly 60% of reserves, produce detailed blueprints on how they intend to reduce their production and transmission emissions and scale up clean energy investments at COP28.

It stresses the need to advance a new fund which would help poor countries to deal with the growing incidence of climate-related loss and damage.

More than 400 NGOS signed a letter in 2022 asking heads of delegations to Agree on the Loss and Damage Finance Agenda Item for COP27:   A commitment was made to set up a financial support structure for the most vulnerable by the next COP in 2023 (UN News) – a Loss and Damage fund. That is being carried forward (Indian Express)

Some countries will be pushing for an agreement to phase out the use of fossil fuels; in April G7 nations agreed to accelerate the “phase-out of unabated fossil fuels”, the biggest contributor to global warming, while others – including China, Saudi Arabia and Russia – are pushing for fossil fuel use to be phased down only over time.

As Stuti Mishra expresses it, “ At the heart of the debate is one phrase: whether the final text – the Dubai climate pact that countries will be signing – will include a call for the “phase out” or “phase down” of fossil fuels”. (Independent)

–

*The Conference of the Parties (COP) the supreme decision-making body of the Convention, is made up of the 184 states who are members of CITES

 

 

 

 

o

o

Government: new oil and gas fields are high cost, long lead time whereas renewable energy, already in the pipeline, has no fuel cost

A Balsall Heath reader, well versed in environmental technology, is doubtful if new oil and gas fields will in fact be developed, due to the high cost, long lead time and understanding that a lot of renewable energy projects are in the pipeline, which have no fuel cost at all, commenting:

“This is threatening to the value of the assets of oil and gas companies, so they have to say that they have new reserves. Investors would pull out if the value of the companies were to fall”.

He draws attention to a 2013 article by Jeremy Leggett (right) who asks:

“Having courted economic Armageddon in the financial sector (2008), might we be capable of repeating the trick in the energy sector?”

Jeremy Leggett (right), who resigned from earth science research at Imperial College after becoming concerned about global warming, became a climate campaigner and much more, answers in a Huffington Post article: 

“(A) resounding yes. We are doing so. On multiple fronts” 

He presents the following statements, held as comforting core beliefs across much of society today:

• Climate change is not that big a threat.
• Fossil-fuels count as assets at zero risk of being devalued by policy action on climate.
• Oil supply can keep growing for decades.
• Fracking shale is a sustainable route to new mass prosperity in the US and beyond.

He and others believe that each of these assertions is false, entailing a belief system that threatens society with disaster of some kind. However, many do believe them.

https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news/blog/how-companies-use-lobbying-drive-net-zero-future

The energy incumbency threatened by our uncomfortable counter narratives pushes a blizzard of hype out into the media, with awesome effectiveness, in defence of its comforting mantras:

• Climate change is an invention of anti-growth agitators.
• Fossil fuels are attractive investments.
• Fracking is a risk-free route to much-needed jobs.

Though he would be breaking confidences, talking about meetings that were implicitly private and making some powerful enemies, Leggett decided to write The Energy of Nations: RiskBlindness and the Road to Renaissance.

His book tells the story of the energy and financial markets from 2004, the year the oil price began its inexorable rise, following all the main subsequent events chronologically and continuing to follow them in his monthly Huffington Post column and on his website: www.jeremyleggett.net.

The factual narrative in the book is interspersed with diary extracts, to show Leggett’s experience of the events and of key office-holders in industry and government, sailing ‘as close a course to the wind’ as he dared, relating tales of dysfunctional human behaviour witnessed behind closed doors.

He has also tried to paint a vision of a possible road to renaissance. Readers will not be surprised to hear that the renewables industries are leading characters in this part of the drama.

Renaissance is not a given outcome he adds; we could yet lose. Advocates of clean energy are in the midst of a complex civil war with opponents entrenched right across much of the energy sector, the financial sector, government and the supporting institutions.–

Jeremy Leggett ends: “I hope my book will help encourage defectors from the failed belief systems in and around energy markets that so imperil our future. I hope you will draw encouragement from my narrative. I invite your help in spreading my story of our opponents, and my thoughts about our road to eventual victory”.

 

 

 

 

o

o

Will the government keep Britain’s waterways in good condition?

Fund Britain’s Waterways (FBW) was set up to campaign for enough government grant funding to retain the environmental, economic and social benefits that Britain’s inland waterways provide. Current funding, which has been fixed at £52.6m per annum since 2021, is failing to keep up with inflation and the physical toll that more frequent severe weather is having on the waterways’ infrastructure.

Afloat reported that a flotilla of boats delivered a visual and vocal message to Westminster on Tuesday (14 November). It said that funding cuts for Britain’s canals and rivers are unacceptable and damaging. The leisure and commercial boats attracted parliamentarians’ attention to their rally by sounding their horns and halting outside the Palace of Westminster. The rally built on the success of well-supported campaign cruises earlier in the year in Birmingham and Gloucester and more events are being planned in the runup to the next general election.

Richard Parry, Chief Executive of the Canal & River Trust. writes about the environmental, economic and social benefits that Britain’s inland waterways provide:

Generating low carbon energy: hydro schemes are generating around 21MWh per year, the equivalent energy for around 10,000 homes

Heating and cooling: water-sourced heat pumps are already helping to heat and cool buildings at a number of large canal-side commercial sites

Sustainable drainage canals: provide millions of pounds worth of drainage services and relieve the strain on overflowing urban surface water systems

Urban cooling: research shows that the presence of water can reduce the ‘urban heat island’ effect that threatens to make summers in big cities intolerable in the future

Tourism: our waterways provide ideal off-road routes for walkers and cyclists. They can also offer water taxis or buses, unpowered canoes or paddle-boards and leisure boating provides a lower-carbon alternative to foreign trips.,

Water transfer: the canal system provides water supplies, drinking water in Cheshire (care of the Llangollen Canal) and nearly half of all the drinking water in Bristol (via the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal).

Climate-safe routes for service infrastructure: over 700km of data networks are hosted within our towpaths, along with other critical infrastructure of national importance, such as electricity cables and gas mains.

Biodiversity solution:communities and local authorities through community adoptions and other initiatives to improve biodiversity and bring back declining wildlife into the heart of our urban landscapes.

Low carbon transport: the network of canals and river navigations in the hearts of our towns and cities can play a huge role in providing ‘net zero’ solutions and climate change mitigation.

Richard Parry points out that thousands of tonnes of freight are moved every year on our canals and rivers. Transporting goods by water produces lower carbon emissions and removes hundreds of vehicles from the roads.

(Ed) Given the same government support as the rail system, transporting goods on Britain’s large rivers and canals can reduce fuel consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce road traffic, congestion, injuries and deaths.

 

 

o

o

Rishi Sunak is misleading us: more drilling for fossil fuels will NOT strengthen Britain’s energy or environmental security

The Financial Times reports that a new bill to be introduced by the British government will allow companies to bid yearly for new licences to drill for fossil fuels, despite the warning from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2021 that there should be no new development of new oil and gas fields if the world is to reach net zero by 2050.

Many members of the public will be duped into believing the government’s assertion that this will strengthen Britain’s energy security, but the oil and gas will not be used directly in this country. As usual, it will be exported to continental Europe and repurchased at the international market price.

Michael Bradshaw, global energy professor at Warwick Business School, comments: “It may sound a trivial point but it is not long ago that the French government threatened to switch the power off to Guernsey because it had a squabble over fishing rights.”(FT2)

Moreover, the FT reports that the government appointed regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority – formerly the Oil and Gas Authority – points out that any new licensing will do little to reduce Britain’s dependence on imports or affect prices of oil or gas significantly as the basin’s reserves are in decline and the fossil fuels are traded on international markets.

Dieter Helm (left), economic policy professor at Oxford university, said there was a “huge vulnerability in the UK relying on external energy supplies in the face of shocks”. “We are doing it with gas, where there is almost no storage and no back-up, which requires us to pay the highest price for LNG tanker loads, which is one reason the gas crisis hit the UK so hard.” (FT2)

The costs to the taxpayer- and the climate

Professor Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading, earlier considered the real cost of the UK oilfield approval. He wrote:

“In approving the Rosebank oilfield one hopes that the UK government’s cost benefit calculations include not only the carbon costs of the field’s production but also the climate costs of oil and gas when it gets burnt by its eventual clients . . . The decommissioning costs are also invariably borne by the taxpayer in a way that does not reflect the important ‘polluter pays’ principle”.(FT2)

As Philip Evans, climate campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: UK voters want warmer homes, cheaper energy bills and a government that’s not afraid to take on the climate crisis

“Instead they’re being ignored so Rishi Sunak can pander to corporate interests, with licences for fossil fuels that’ll make no difference to bills, do nothing for energy security, and produce yet more profits for dizzyingly wealthy companies like Shell. They profit while we get colder and poorer, and the UK turns into a nation that’s fuelling the climate crisis rather than helping to fix it”. (Local London)

O

O

Broken Britain 45: Alan Simpson

A catalogue of collapse

In his September article, former MP Alan Simpson summarises:

“On the eve of the autumn term, schools were notified they couldn’t re-open because defective concrete in their roofs put them at risk of imminent collapse. Around the country, GP practices open their phone lines and within moments queues of 40-50 people are hanging on for an appointment.

Hospital waiting lists grow because the government has failed to offer nurses and doctors decent pay, sufficient to retain and recruit. Rail services are disrupted for the same reason.

And all the while, Water Companies go un-fined for the untreated sewage they pour into our rivers and beaches.

He makes several recommendations:

• Instead of chasing stupid, planet destroying, international trade deals, regulations could be changed to favour more localised (and accountable) food systems. Examples of these can already be found within the European Slow Food movement.
• Business and industrial tax allowances could be skewed in favour of co-operatives and common ownership enterprises.
• Like others on state benefits (and those in full-time public employment) MPs could be required to have only the one job.
• Train operators could be limited to paying dividends and bonuses only if the trains run on time.
• And Post Office executives could face personal penalties (rather than bonuses) if the service fails to meet statutory delivery targets.
• The power of the corporate pound
• Everything in today’s Broken Britain works the other way round.
• Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the struggle to save humanity from self-propelled destruction.

But as the prospect of a Tory landslide collapse looms ever larger a swarm of corporate lobbyists are already offering Labour free advice on how to hold this broken game together. All live in (well financed) denial of the existential implosion they are creating. There may be an embargo on trade with Russia, but this doesn’t stop Gazprom from running a €100m/year lobbying budget. And every other part of the ‘oil-igarchy’ is doing the same.

Look around the planet. The centre ground is imploding. And wherever the Left has become marginalised or criminalised the political space is being filled, not by the centre but by the Far Right.

Next-Generation Politics

https://www.nextgenpolitics.org/blog/qml2j6g4obrhgvlerdduwtoae03vo1

Alan hopes that someone in Labour will grasp this. But is that enough? A large majority of the British public should call time on ‘pandering to the corporate rich’, and, as Alan writes, give the space to a ‘people and planet’ economics – a new politics.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Yes, future generations will suffer – but ‘for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders’

UK government bows to the all-powerful fossil fuel lobby

Economic Sociology & Political Economy

Ms Truss had urged Rishi Sunak to delay or abandon some of the Government’s key net zero measures and today he has delayed them.

“This U-turn will cause a huge headache for manufacturers, who are crying out for clarity and consistency,” Ian Plimmer of Autotrader

“A bold change of tack may well yield electoral dividends, giving disillusioned Conservatives something we can actually vote for. My polling suggests scepticism of expensive net zero commitments unites the 2019 Tory coalition,” says Prof Matt Goodwin.

Some banks and sections of the media ignore the net zero goals

The transition to net zero and pressures from ageing populations risk pushing up the tax burden, a City bank has warned.

Households face an estimated bill of £2,300 each to shut down Britain’s gas grid as part of the Government’s drive towards net zero, suggests a leaked draft of an official report.

Predictions of such risks and costs pale into insignificance when compared with the scientific predictions of risks of global food and water shortages, displacement of people and the long-term costs of damage inflicted by rising sea levels, wildfires and floods.

A day later

o

o

o

0

A better answer: decentralised local grids

Today’s blog is prompted by points made in A Feast of Fools by Alan Simpson, who was MP for Nottingham South for 18 years.

In 2007 he announced that he would not stand at the next General Election because he felt that campaigning for radical environmental policy changes outside parliament would be far more effective. His focus is now on climate-related work with the UK regions and politicians, civil society and civil servants in the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe. (some links and graphics added)

Simpson points out that decentralised energy systems avoid the 50% of energy currently lost at the power station, and the 10% (or more) lost in transmission.

The widely deplored ‘failure’ of offshore bidding appears to be a blessing in disguise as Simpson reports community opposition to constructing thousands of miles of high voltage cabling needed to ship electricity from off-shore wind farms to towns and cities and hundreds of thousands of new pylons. If implemented, the energy lost in transmission and the financial cost would have been exorbitant.

The writer suggests that off-shore wind could supply coastal towns and cities. avoiding those financial costs and associated transmission losses.

Simpson adds: “At no stage will the debate even acknowledge that decentralised local grids may be a far better answer. Britain’s problem is that this would break Sunak’s model of an economy dominated by off-shore corporate interests”.

He reports that today there are towns and cities across the globe reinventing themselves as clean energy communities.

Combined heat and power systems in Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands cut energy losses, carbon emissions and household bills in ways that both the public and the planet welcome.

Of course this costs money, he adds

• So tot up the hidden subsidies Britain throws at today’s energy cartel and we’re not short of change’
• Rescind the 90% rebate Rishi Sunak gave oil and gas companies on their windfall profits tax if they invested in new oil and gas production.
• And put localities and communities in the driving seat by revisiting the increased ‘reserve requirements’ placed on banks following the 2008 financial crisis. (Investopedia explains to the uninitiated that lower reserve requirements mean banks do not need to keep as much cash on hand. This gives them more money for consumer and business loans).

The National Grid’s role of balancing supply and demand and ensuring a stable electricity system has become increasingly difficult in the last decade with the advent of weather-dependent renewable energy generation. Last year the government announced it would create a publicly owned “future system operator”, to take on the main responsibilities for managing Britain’s electricity system currently carried out by the National Grid (Financial Times).

Simpson also advocates a restructuring of the National Grid, returning it to its original role as Britain’s not-for-profit ‘strategic reserve’, responsible for developing and maintaining the supply of electricity for England and Wales, adding a vitally important statutory duty: delivering 10% annual carbon reductions.

 

 

 

o

o

 

Climate Collapse – The Grim Silence of Our Leaders: Media Lens

The following extract was taken from an article by David Cromwell and David Edwards, editors of Media Lens.

David Cromwell studied natural philosophy, astronomy, solar physics, leaving a research position in oceanography in Southampton in 2010 to work full-time on Media Lens. After graduating from Leicester University with a Politics degree he worked in sales and marketing management for several large corporations, David  Edwards became profoundly dissatisfied with the corporate working environment. In 1991 he left the business world completely to begin his writing career.

Their aim is to raise awareness of the systemic failure of the corporate media to report the world honestly and accurately. They encourage readers to challenge the journalists, editors and media managers who set news agendas that traditionally reflect elite interests and hope to encourage the creation of non-corporate media – good examples are Democracy Now!, The Real News Network and ZNet – that offer genuine alternatives to the corporate mainstream. Fundamentally, their goal is to reduce human and animal suffering wherever it occurs.

Above left: Media Lens receives the 2007 Gandhi Foundation Peace Award.

Climate Collapse – The Grim Silence of Our Leaders

None of us has previously witnessed a barrage of extreme weather events of the kind that has been devastating lives across the globe this summer: Canadian wildfires the size of Austria, a Hawaiian town incinerated by a hurricane-fuelled firestorm, a Greek island devastated by three years of rainfall in a single day, a Libyan town washed into the sea after 40cm of rain fell in twenty-four hours leaving 20,000 dead and killer hurricanes fuelled by oceans overheated by climate change. And then there were the extraordinary heatwaves in Italy, Spain, France, Japan, China; the floods in Madrid, Barcelona, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Beijing, Manila, on and on, with temperature, wind and rainfall records shattered the world over.

Sky News: Drone footage shows the extent of damage caused by the collapse of two dams in the flood-hit eastern city of Derna.

Almost as astonishing has been the indifference of our leaders. The silence has been deafening. Where are they? Why is no-one joining the dots and demanding some kind of serious response?

Jeremy Corbyn, a rare exception, commented of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) this week: ‘Not one mention of the catastrophic flooding in Libya at PMQs. Where is the concern for the victims of fires in Europe or the droughts across Africa? Where is the outrage at fossil fuel giants destroying our planet? Where is the hope for future generations? Wake up!’

Broadcaster and author Stephen Fry said on the BBC: ‘Extraordinary that you can have a conversation with an economics minister in Labour who didn’t even mention the climate catastrophe coming, that there’s a tsunami coming towards us… yet everyone is talking about just doing the same thing only better. It’s catastrophic.’

When asked about the Maui fire death toll in Hawaii, US President Joe Biden replied: ‘No comment.’

Compare this silence with the prediction made this morning on Twitter/X by Professor Bill McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at University College London: ‘I hope I am wrong and others may see things differently, but I am expecting effective societal collapse by mid-century, and planning – for my partner and I and our kids – accordingly.’

Or compare with NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus, previously arrested for defending the Earth: ‘Dear journalists of the world: We are at risk of losing basically everything. This – what we’re experiencing now – is how that process unfolds. The more fossil fuels we burn, the further in that process we go.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate catastrophe is not just a looming threat, it is here; despite the desperate pleading for help from climate scientists; and despite the surreal silence and indifference of Western political leaders, a stubborn rump of opinion continues to insist that the climate crisis is a cynical scam promoted by vested interests.

–

Continues here: https://www.medialens.org/2023/climate-collapse-the-grim-silence-of-our-leaders/

 

 

o

o

o

Spend on micro-generation schemes instead of pylons, overhead power lines and underground high-voltage cabling

First published on Future Generations and Climate Change

At no stage will the debate even acknowledge that decentralised local grids may be a far better answer (Alan Simpson)

Nick Winser, who was appointed the government’s first electricity networks commissioner last year, said in his report that a huge expansion of the electricity is needed. National Grid, the FTSE 100 owner of Britain’s transmission network, has estimated that five times as much work on the network will be needed over the next seven years than was undertaken over the past three decades.

Britain will not need new oil and gas production if it incentivises micro-generation schemes. This could also obviate the need for much of the new electricity distribution infrastructure currently considered necessary (Martin Lack).

Solar, wind, storage, demand management, EVs, heat pumps, eco-efficient design, micro-grids, AI-enabled Big Data, and green hydrogen will play essential roles in a Net Zero carbon future (Jonathon Porritt, broken link from former website).

The future role of local energy ownership in the UK has been studied and a report on the subject (below) may be accessed on the Green Alliance website

Community energy projects should be valued for all the services they can bring to the grid and the wider economy. This includes carbon reduction, building local economic and energy resilience and a host of other social benefits that come from reinvesting profits locally.

Community energy has grown steadily in the UK over the past two decades. There are now around 300 projects, providing renewable energy to their communities, using the profits locally. A desire for local control over energy sources, and to address climate change, are the primary motivations for these developments.

In 2014, the British government’s community energy strategy estimated that one million homes would be powered by community energy schemes benefitting from a feed-in tariff by 2020.  Community projects were set up powering 67,000 homes.

In addition to reducing their environmental impact, residents can expect to reduce the cost of their energy bills, and build greater resilience against rising energy prices and disrupted global supply chains.

Dr Barbara Hammond, CE of the Low Carbon Hub, was in government from 2000 until 2010, heading the UK’s renewable energy programme. She supports community energy which enhances the resilience of communities as neighbourhoods come together to take control of the energy they use, through community-owned clean energy generation, joining forces to make their homes more energy efficient and sharing energy-saving advice.

Four years later the government abandoned their strategy, reducing the feed-in tariffs and later abolishing them for new installations in 2019, causing at least 66 community projects to stall or fail.

Precedents in USA and India

Tata Power which sets up industrial-scale solar projects now plans to scale up from 200 to 10,000 microgrids in India. In rural areas of the United States the vast distances mean that installing power lines, which leak power over long distances, are not viable. There have been microgrids generating power using fossil fuel-fired generators for many years, but new projects are now using more sustainable resources like solar power.

Instead of expanding or connecting to the national energy grid, some companies, municipalities, and individuals are creating miniature grids of their own that can operate independently -“microgrids” – providing options for groups that want lower energy bills, more control over where their energy comes from, or a level of reliability that the grid cannot provide (Institute for Self Reliance).

Governments are urged to support the alternatives to inefficient, costly and environmentally destructive centralised energy grids owned by vast foreign conglomerates

Continues here.

o

o

o

o

o