Connect with us

Published

on

The UK is considering a new law which would invite applications for new oil and gas production licenses in the North Sea every year.

This Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will not help with the UK’s energy security, reduce bills or serve anything but fossil fuel giants’ short-term profits. 

On top of this, if it passes into law, the UK faces the grave risk of economy-wrecking lawsuits.

This is because the UK is a member of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) – a multilateral investment pact which allows investors in energy to sue governments over policies that affect their investments in over 50 countries across Europe and Asia.

Investors weapon

The ECT is the most litigated investment agreement in the world. It contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions which are used by fossil fuel companies to deter, delay or raise the cost of climate policies. 

ISDS enables them to sue governments for billion-dollar payouts over their climate policies, in secretive tribunals outside of national legal systems. 

Weak attempts at reforming the Energy Charter Treaty have failed numerous times over the years, and thus many European countries including Germany, France and the Netherlands have decided to exit over the risks to their climate action. 

Loss and damage must be a focus of IPCC’s next reports

The UK government launched a review of its membership last year and is overdue announcing its outcome. 

Recent research by CommonWealth found that at least 40% of the UK’s North Sea oil and gas licenses are owned by foreign investors, many headquartered in ECT member countries like France or Spain.

If the UK government fails to leave the ECT, foreign investment into North Sea oil and gas means not only a headlong sprint in the wrong energy policy direction, but invites a huge bill even if a future government changes course. 

The Labour Party, which is far ahead in the polls, says it will stop new oil production. An election will be held this year.

Coming clash

Carbon Tracker recently showed that North Sea oil and gas companies are financially planning for far slower energy transition scenarios than governments are working to. 

Switzerland proposes first UN expert group on solar geoengineering

As a result, they are setting up a clash between climate policies and their financial expectations, raising the risk of ISDS claims.

Producing the first oil and gas from a field can take more than 18 years. By then, the climate policy landscape will be vastly different.

The 1.5 C warming limit is likely to be passed within the next decade or two, so the imperative to reduce fossil fuel use will be even greater. 

The dearth of long-term thinking in Westminster means policymakers are ignoring the risk of leaving the fossil fuel industry with such a powerful weapon.

An investor using ISDS can claim not only for costs sunk by a government policy but for any future lost profit it expected to earn over a project’s lifetime.

These companies can decry far bigger losses than is reasonable given the fast-moving renewables revolution, and ISDS tribunals are rigged to back them up.

Problems mount for Sahara gas pipeline, leaving Nigerian taxpayers at risk

Facing an ECT claim, any reasonable argument the UK may have developed about the environmental, social – even economic – imperative to phase out fossil fuels will have to be left at the door: it signed up to the fossil fuel giants’ charter, failed to leave it when it had the chance, and breached it. 

So much for the polluter pays: the UK taxpayer will have to bail them out.

Failed reforms

There’s no reforming the deadly oil and gas bill, in or out of the ECT. But remaining a member of the treaty adds an incredulous new dimension of fiscal irresponsibility.

The European Commission is proposing a mass withdrawal to neutralise the Energy Charter Treaty’s sunset clause – which extends the right to ISDS claims for 20 years even after countries leave – among exiting parties. 

If the countries leaving together agree to cancel the sunset clause between themselves, then the benefits of exit are magnified.

Given how many ECT-covered investors in 1.5C-incompatible projects on British soil are European, the UK joining this coordinated withdrawal would eliminate 99% of the ISDS risk – leaving little logical argument to remain bedfellows with climate laggards in a collapsing treaty.

It’s time to rip up the get-out-of-jail-free card that dirty North Sea projects, fast becoming obsolete, have up their sleeve. 

At stake is a chill on policies to address the biggest crisis facing humanity, and an unjust transition that would be billed to the UK public. 

Cleodie Rickard is trade campaign manager at Global Justice Now.

The post Oil drilling while in the Energy Charter Treaty is economically reckless appeared first on Climate Home News.

Oil drilling while in the Energy Charter Treaty is economically reckless

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

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.

    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.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    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.

      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

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      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.