Connect with us

Published

on

The Canadian government has announced a new target to reduce planet-heating emissions 45-50% from 2005 levels by 2035, despite its official advisors on the Net Zero Advisory Board (NZAB) recommending a 50-55% goal and climate campaigners calling for an 80% cut.

The new target is in addition to an existing goal to cut emissions 40-45% by 2030. Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said the 2035 target “keeps us on track to keep the promise to our kids and grandkids that the world we leave behind for them will be safe, sustainable, affordable and prosperous”.

But the NZAB, which the government consulted on the new target, said in a statement on Thursday that “the lower range of the government’s target risks Canada’s ability to stay on track for net-zero emissions”. “Our modelling and analysis showed that targets below 50% will put Canada behind on its legislated objective of net-zero emissions by mid-century,” it added.

UAE kicks off new global round of UN climate plans

The NZAB is made up of nine Canadians, including campaigners, a financier, an electrical engineer, an Indigenous community leader and a climate scientist.

The board warned that “postponing action means requiring even deeper decarbonisation efforts in the future, which could bring higher risks and costs”. “We need a national effort to reach, and ideally surpass, a 50% reduction by 2035 while ensuring climate policies are affordable for Canadians,” it said.

All countries that signed up to the 2015 Paris Agreement are supposed to submit a more ambitious national climate plan – known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) – to the United Nations by late next year. The Canadian government confirmed that its new 2035 target will be part of its NDC, but the full document will not be published until 2025. A concrete implementation plan to meet the target will be drawn up by December 2029, it added.

International comparisons

The NZAB compared Canada’s 2035 target unfavourably with other similarly wealthy nations like the UK, which recently set a target to cut emissions by 81% between 1990 and 2035 “following the recommendation of its climate advisory group, the Climate Change Committee”. The board added that the EU is expected to choose a 2035 target in a similar range and Japan has recently proposed a 60% reduction target, in order to stay on a pathway to net-zero.

EU should push for global deal to curb solar geoengineering, advisors say

NZAB member Catherine Abreu, who is director of the International Climate Politics Hub, noted that Canada’s target envisions at most a 1% a year decrease in emissions between 2030 and 2035, a pace of reduction she called “frankly pathetic” when the US, UK and EU cut their emissions 3%, 5% and 8% respectively in 2023.

She added that the “incredibly disappointing” target will damage Canada’s global credibility as it “sticks out like a sore thumb amidst the targets that other G7 nations are putting forward”. “It’s painful to see a government that has spent most of the last decade working hard to revolutionise Canadian climate policy put out a target that projects those policies will fail to do what they’re designed to,” she said in a statement.

Oil an obstacle

The Canadian government has been led by Justin Trudeau’s centrist Liberal Party since 2015. In 2019, it implemented a national tax on carbon emissions and is now trying to implement a cap on emissions from the country’s large oil and gas production industry. The carbon price started out at C20 (US$16) a tonne and, under the current government’s plans, will ramp up steadily to C$170 ($134) in 2030.

Despite these measures, emissions have yet to consistently decline in Canada as they have in Europe and the US. This is partly because Canada still produces a lot of oil, a sector mostly under the control of provincial governments, and the production of this fossil fuel creates a lot of emissions. In addition, Canada’s transport emissions have continued to rise, as Canadians opt for bigger, more polluting cars like Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs).

Why rich countries are “reluctant” on additional JETP coal-to-clean deals

In a statement on the new target, the government claimed it had “successfully bent the emissions curve” through efforts like energy efficiency improvements, decarbonising electricity and the carbon tax. When it came to power in 2015, emissions were on course to increase 9% by 2030, it said, but instead they have fallen slightly already. There were over 314,000 jobs in the environmental and clean technology products sector in 2021, up 6.5% from 2020, it added.

Right-wing backlash

Canada’s carbon tax has been highly contentious and opposed by oil-reliant provinces like Alberta, as well as by the right-wing opposition Conservative Party. With federal elections scheduled for October next year, the Conservatives are leading in the polls and are campaigning by putting the slogan “axe the tax” on billboards and T-shirts.

Reacting to the new 2035 emissions target, Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said Trudeau had “chosen to cave” to “belligerent climate deniers”.

She pointed to “oil and gas backed-disinformation campaigns and efforts to roll back progress”. “It has been alarming to see, with some rare exceptions, our politicians engage in a race to the bottom – at a moment when we most need leadership to confront the billionaires profiting from burning our world down,” she added.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Canada ignores official advice in setting much-criticised 2035 emissions target appeared first on Climate Home News.

Canada ignores official advice in setting much-criticised 2035 emissions target

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Jimmy

Published

on

Hello, I am Jimmy and the Captain of Oceania. I learnt to sail in my hometown of Hobart, Tasmania. I’ve spent years navigating Tasmania’s wildly spectacular coastline, and crossed Bass Strait many times, including the Sydney to Hobart yacht races. My first time sailing with Greenpeace was in 2017 as a volunteer on the Rainbow Warrior.

It is a privilege to be a part of the Oceania project, and I hope we can achieve many things with this beautiful ship.

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/team/jimmy/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Steve

Published

on

I’m Steve the Engineer onboard. My happy place is on or under the ocean – offshore sailing, Surf Life Saving, scuba diving and ocean swimming .

I love adventure, problem solving and getting my hands dirty.

I’m excited to see Oceania on the high seas and promote and defend our magnificent oceans.

As an engineer it’s my job to keep everything running from the engine to the water and the bathrooms, (make cups of tea) and help sail the boat.

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/team/steve/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

After Hormuz, Nepal and wildfires, people demand action to make polluters pay

Published

on

Anne Jellema is executive director of 350.org; Mads Christensen is executive director of Greenpeace International; and Amitabh Behar is executive director of Oxfam International.

On Monday, global petitions with a collective total of more than 2 million signatures were presented to the United Nations, calling on governments to introduce binding mechanisms to make fossil-fuel companies and the super-rich contribute to the costs of the damage they have created.

The petition signatures were received by Selwin Hart, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Climate Action, in New York during the UN General Assembly, sending a clear message to governments: there is no more room for excuses.

If governments are serious about resilience, energy security and protecting people from an increasingly unstable world, they must make the companies profiting from the fossil-fuel economy pay their fair share. Because the crisis we are facing is no longer some distant threat. It is unfolding in real time, and it is exposing the extraordinary costs of an economy still built around fossil fuels.

    For more than six months, the Strait of Hormuz, the channel through which a fifth of the world’s oil once flowed without a second thought, has been closed, contested or effectively unusable. Tankers sit at anchor. Insurance premiums have gone through the roof. Petrol pumps from Los Angeles to Lagos have felt the tremor. It has taken a war to remind the world just how much of our daily lives still rests on a single, fragile artery of fossil fuels.

    At the other end of the same emergency, a glacier came down on the Nepal–China border in the last week of August. A wall of ice, rock and water tore through the Bhote Koshi and Langtang valleys. It has been described as one of the deadliest disasters in the region’s modern history, unfolding in a landscape where the world’s glaciers are retreating and destabilising at a pace scientists have been warning about for years.

    And this came only weeks after hundreds of thousands of people were displaced — not by ice, but by fire. Europe has experienced its worst wildfire season in more than a decade. Homes have been lost across Spain, Portugal, France, Greece and the UK. Firefighters and civilians have been killed battling the blazes, while damage and reconstruction costs continue to reach extraordinary levels.

    These are not separate crises. They are different expressions of a world becoming more volatile, while the fossil-fuel economy continues to generate enormous profits for those at the top and pushes the costs onto everyone else.

    Communities absorbing cost

    Because the crisis we are facing is no longer some distant threat. It is unfolding in real time, and it is exposing the extraordinary costs of an economy still built around fossil fuels. One thread runs through all of these events: a global economy still organised around the profits of a fossil fuel industry that has known, for decades, exactly what it was doing to the planet.

    At a moment when governments are gathering in New York for the UN General Assembly to talk about security, resilience and economic competitiveness, it is worth spelling out what “security” – or the lack of it, driven by our economy’s dependence on oil – actually means this year for ordinary people around the world: 35,000 excess deaths in Europe due to heat; the highest food prices in three and a half years; $700 billion in economic losses, threatening countless jobs and livelihoods, from a war and a closed oil chokepoint whose consequences are nowhere near over.

    Meanwhile the companies that extracted, refined, shipped and sold the fuel behind all of this continue to report extraordinary profits. Households are paying more for energy. Governments are spending billions on disaster response, on reconstruction, on emergency deployments of firefighters and aid. Communities are absorbing the cost of a system they didn’t design and don’t control. We pay. They profit.

    This is not a coincidence, and it is not inevitable. It is a political choice, repeated year after year, to let the companies most responsible for the climate crisis hoard the wealth they generate while the rest of us carry the risk.

    Taxes and fines needed

    That is why, together with communities and campaigners in dozens of countries have spent the last three years building the case for a simple, overdue idea: polluters should pay for the damage they have caused. Not through voluntary pledges or distant net-zero promises, but through binding mechanisms, climate damages taxes, surtaxes on fossil fuel profits, and fines ring-fenced for recovery and adaptation that put real money where the harm actually is. This is how we take the profit out of destruction and protect the generations to come.

    The response has told us we are not alone in thinking this. Our petitions calling on governments to make polluters pay have now gathered a collective total of over 2 million signatures from people across every region of the world.

    The case for making polluters pay has moved into the mainstream

    That is not a fringe demand. It is what happens when people watch a choke-point war spike their fuel bill, watch a glacier take a thousand lives, watch their own summer holidays rearranged by fire. They draw the obvious conclusion: the people who caused this should be paying for it – not profiting from it.

    We hear the objection already forming: that this is not the moment, with wars underway and economies fragmenting, to burden industry further. We would say the opposite is true. If governments can mobilise trillions for war, for bailouts and for new fossil fuel infrastructure, they can mobilise the political will to tax the companies that caused this crisis.

    Money for clean energy and resilience

    That money can go straight to the people paying for it, through cheaper, cleaner, more secure energy, and through funding for communities on the frontline of floods, fires and glacial collapse. There isn’t an excuse left. There is only a choice about where power and money go next. Every dollar we don’t spend now on adaptation, resilience and cutting emissions, we burn many times over later: on disasters we could have prevented and economies we scramble to fix too late.

    This year’s UNGA should be the moment that choice gets made in public. Governments arriving in New York will talk about resilience, about energy security, about protecting their citizens from an unstable world. Let them explain on the record why a fossil fuel industry that has spent decades profiting from that instability should not be the one paying to fix it so wrecking the planet no longer pays off.

    The fires, floods and storms won’t just go away. The system that keeps producing these disasters, and keeps paying the same companies for the privilege, will not change itself unless political leaders step up. It is on all of us to make sure they hear, as loudly as possible, that the time for excuses has run out.

    The post After Hormuz, Nepal and wildfires, people demand action to make polluters pay appeared first on Climate Home News.

    After Hormuz, Nepal and wildfires, people want action to make polluters pay

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com