- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Back in 1978, my year two teacher at Kelmscott Primary School in the foothills of Perth was a woman named Lesley Choules, who was especially fond of homely aphorisms as part of her teaching approach. Mrs Choules would deliver these cheerily, or icily, depending on how we had been behaving, but not much time would pass on any given day without her reminding us that “a smile costs nothing, but gives much”, or more ominously, “idle hands make the devil’s work”. All very old school, no doubt, but delivered with care and sincerity.
I think Mrs Choules was the first person I ever heard say that a “stranger is just a friend you haven’t met yet”. A simple but profoundly lovely sentiment, which is so at odds with the contemporary encouragement by demagogues and algorithms, to treat strangers with suspicion, or as subjects for exploitation.
And I’m exceedingly fortunate to experience the phenomenon of ‘stranger as friend’ quite a bit today as an adult. It occurs on every occasion when I meet someone new and end up finding out that they support Greenpeace.
These moments are wildly unpredictable in their timing-–being told “yes, I support Greenpeace”, mid-needle, by the person giving me the vaccination particularly stands out in my memory. But what I have learned, not just from reading organisational demographic reports but from my own daily life, is that we Greenpeacers are a varied bunch of human beings united by especially wonderful common threads: a sense of personal commitment to seeing an earth capable of nurturing life in all of its magnificent diversity, and a shared conviction that together we have the power to secure this future, whatever the odds. That’s Greenpeace.
So, to pick one recent example, I was on the road with a colleague, and we stopped in at a pub to grab a counter meal at the end of a long day. It was a fairly typical country hotel…some football playing on a big screen somewhere at the back, people tucking into their parmies and chips.
We found a table, and I went up to place our orders, accompanied by a bit of a chat with the person pulling the drinks. In the course of a polite conversation about the World Cup I mentioned in passing that I had South American work colleagues. The bartender then asked where I worked, to which I responded “Greenpeace”.
And then there was the moment.
‘Greenpeace! I get the emails and sign everything! I love the oceans. It started for me when I was travelling around the world and I realised how much damage was being done. I had to do something.’
These occasions carry an enormous significance to me, and to all of us at Greenpeace. On a personal level, they activate something profound and primal: a rush of belonging and sense of kinship and gratitude. I know, as a matter of intellect, that there are millions of people who support Greenpeace all over the world. But there is nothing like the experience of being told by a stranger, “I am part of Greenpeace too”, to viscerally reinforce that powerful, wonderful reality.
It is only this community of ‘strangers who are friends’ that enables Greenpeace to exist at all. Just to think on this for a moment, Greenpeace has run massive campaigns, taking on the most powerful vested interests in the world, for more than fifty years. Yet in that whole time, we haven’t taken funding from any government or business. We exist only because of people who believe in our mission and our method and give of themselves—their time, money, name, skill, energy, trust, talent, passion and perseverance. It is a miracle of collaborative action that we make possible every day, together.
So, with this in mind, I smile at the bartender and say a version of what I always do in these circumstances:
‘Thank you, thank you. Greenpeace only exists because of you, and me, and all of us. So, deeply and sincerely, thank you.’
And it is such a privilege to have the opportunity to say those words, on behalf of an organisation that I have loved since I was a kid, and for a mission that is my vocation, for all life on earth.
I don’t know what Mrs Choules would have made of Greenpeace—a bit naughty maybe—but I remember her as someone who loved nature, and she encouraged that love in her pupils. I like to think she would have recognised our common bonds, and been delighted at their regular discovery in these idiosyncratic encounters.
To meet someone who is part of Greenpeace is to know a friend. Another spirit who has found belonging, purpose, meaning and impact in our shared ideal. The truth is, you never know who, you never know where, but if you sail with Greenpeace, you have mates. You will never face the world alone.
Whatever is here now, whatever is to come, we will see it through together. We have agency on this earth. Across our many languages and lives, we will continue to dream a universal dream of a flourishing planet, and make good on our common conviction that together we have the power to make it so.
With Love,
David
Q & A
A question I was asked this week—and quite often get asked—is, what is the relationship between Greenpeace and other well known environmental organisations like the Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, Bird Life, Australian Marine Conservation Society and others?
Greenpeace is independent, but we are also deeply collaborative, and so often work closely with our good mates at these organisations and others. For example, a number of those organisations I have mentioned above are involved in opposing Woodside’s threat to Scott Reef, and we are all conscious that we have the greatest impact when we work together.
That said, organisations have varying strengths, histories, organisational and institutional realities, so we can often play different and complimentary roles, depending on our capabilities. On a personal level, I’ve always been very grateful for collegiate, trusting and frank relationships with colleagues and friends within the environmental movement (here’s my note of appreciation for Kelly O’Shanassy, on the occasion of her leaving ACF last year, for example). In that sense too, we are stronger together, and strongest when we each play our own part well
Continue Reading
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
-
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.
Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
-
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a res