Connect with us

Published

on

“The measure of a country’s greatness should be based on how well it cares for its most vulnerable populations.” – Mahatma Gandhi

It is no longer the question of whether climate change is real or not; as record-breaking temperatures, destructive floods, droughts, wildfires, and tropical cyclones occur around the entire world. Zooming in, the United States alone, since 1980’s has had 376 weather and climate disasters exceeding 2.7 trillion dollars (climate.gov), not counting the lives lost and impacted by these events.

What is climate change? Simply stated, the earth is surrounded by an envelope of gasses that trap the sun’s heat and prevent the earth from freezing. However, accumulation of these gasses can cause too much heat to be trapped and raise temperatures that will eventually be unsuitable for life. Accumulation of these ‘greenhouse gasses’ occur primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) which releases large amounts of carbon dioxide, one of the three main greenhouse gasses, into the atmosphere. We burn fossil fuels to generate different forms of energy such as electricity and heat. To complicate matters further, we are removing trees (deforestation) and green space (urban encroachment) which would’ve helped to reduce the carbon dioxide accumulation from the atmosphere. Thus bringing us to the climate crisis we are facing today.

In a global effort to address the climate crisis, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol, signed by 192 countries and legally binds these developed countries, which are responsible for the majority of the carbon emission — to reduce their carbon output. This was followed by the Paris Agreement in 2015, which builds on the Kyoto Protocol by establishing a new global effort to address climate change through mitigation (reduce carbon emissions), adaptation (adjust to current and future climate change effects), and loss and damage (support to those most impacted by climate change) efforts. The new goal of the Paris Agreement was to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees celsius — specifically, 1.5 degrees Celsius.

COP29 is referred to as the ‘climate finance COP’ because the goal is to establish a new global climate finance target, simply stated how much should wealthy nations (referred to as the Global North), which are responsible for the majority of the carbon emissions, pay to vulnerable nations (referred to as the Global South) which are most impacted by climate change, although they produce the lowest carbon emissions.

Globally, all nations agree that climate action is needed for a sustainable future, however the great divide in climate action arises when it is time to discuss responsibilities and finance. Which is why this COP was so chaotic and contentious. The prior goal of $100 billion by 2025 is no longer sufficient given the rise in carbon emissions. According to climate experts, the new proposed goal should be $1 trillion — a minimum of what is needed to assist vulnerable nations deal with the impacts of climate change and build sustainable clean energy.

The world’s future is dependent on how these nations will respond.

Cuc is a Climate Generation Window Into COP delegate for COP29. To learn more, we encourage you to meet the full delegation, support our delegates, and subscribe to the Window Into COP digest.

Cuc Vu

Cuc (pronounced “Cook”) Vu is a graduate student in the STEM Education program at the University of Minnesota. Her research interest involves examining the phenomena behind inequities in representation of marginalized populations in STEM disciplines. Her favorite class to teach is “Nature in the Cities”, an environmental science course that focuses on science and conservation of biodiversity in the Twin Cities. This course covers the importance of socially responsible and culturally sensitive interventions to environmental problems.

The post The great divide in climate action appeared first on Climate Generation.

The great divide in climate action

Continue Reading

Climate Change

REPORT: WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan

Published

on

Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.

Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.

WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.

Summary

  • Creating local employment.
  • Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
  • Lowering household energy costs

To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.

Photo of wind turbines located near the sea at Albany Wind Farm in Western Australia.

Key Findings

  • Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
  • Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
  • Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
  • Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
  • Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
  • Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
Workers at Keppel Prince in Portland manufacture and install wind turbines in Australia's burgeoning industry.

What you can do

WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:

REPORT: WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan

Continue Reading

Climate Change

COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan

Published

on

Article Contents

Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.

The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.

It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.

Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.

Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.

This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.

It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.

The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.

During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.

Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later. 

Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.

Formal negotiations

Finance

Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.

At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.

The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.

As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.

The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.

Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.

Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya. 

Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.

Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.

However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.

Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.

The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.

BlueSky post by Aruna Chandrasekhar (@arunacsekhar.bsky.social): "COP17 was supposed to be a nature finance stocktake, ramping contributions to "at least $30bn/yr" and sketching the bones of post-2030 nature funding. "Broadening the contributor base" was an outlier, appearing exactly once in the COP16 decision. Now it's the headliner."

Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature. 

The second paragraph of Article 20 of the UN biodiversity convention. The text says: "The developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfil the obligations of this Convention and to benefit from its provisions and which costs are agreed between a developing country Party and the institutional structure referred to in Article 21, in accordance with policy, strategy, programme priorities and eligibility criteria and an indicative list of incremental costs established by the Conference of the Parties. Other Parties, including countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, may voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. For the purpose of this Article, the Conference of the Parties, shall at its first meeting establish a list of developed country Parties and other Parties which voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. The Conference of the Parties shall periodically review and if necessary amend the list. Contributions from other countries and sources on a voluntary basis would also be encouraged. The implementation of these commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy, predictability and timely flow of funds and the importance of burden-sharing among the contributing Parties included in the list."
The second paragraph of Article 20 of the UN biodiversity convention. Source: UN CBD

The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, i