Janet Ofeforpa was at her family cassava farm in south-east Ghana when overflowing water from the nearby Akosombo hydro-electric dam unexpectedly came rushing onto her land.
In a panic, she ran home to gather her children and the few belongings they could salvage and fled to higher ground.
The family is now among the more than 26,000 displaced by the floods. They are sheltering at a local school, unsure when or how they will be able to return to their land and rebuild.
“I have three children and I’m the only one who takes care of them”, Ofeforpa told Climate Home outside the school shelter. “One of them is Delali who I was helping prepare to go to university. All those preparations were taken away.”
Janet Ofeforpa outside the school she and her family are sheltering in in Mepe (Photo: Elikem Akpalu)
Ofeforpa lives in Mepe, one of the towns that was hardest hit. Entire homes were flattened, crops were wiped out, schooling was put on hold and the flooding of toilets, cemeteries and rubbish drumps has led to a surge in typhoid and cholera cases.
The flooding happened because heavy rains had increased the volume of water in the Akosombo dam dangerously close to its limit.
In September, the government-owned electricity company which manages the dam – the Volta River Authority (VRA) – began what it calls a “controlled spillage” of water from the reservoir.
This is a standard practice after heavy rainfall that typically doesn’t have a significant impact on downstream communities. But this time it caused the worst destruction since the dam was built in the 1960s.
Climate change’s role
The kind of unpredictable and heavy rainfall which filled up the reservoir has become the new norm in West Africa, which scientists link to climate change.
But many locals allege the disaster was the result of government negligence too, with the VRA failing to properly warn people their homes may flood.
Togbe Korsi Nego VI, the Paramount Chief of Mepe, spoke to Climate Home from his home, where local volunteers had gathered to help distribute donated water sachets, rice and sleeping mats. His phone rang constantly.
“This is not a natural disaster. This is a man-made disaster,” he said. He added that “nobody came to warn us” and “the government has refused to take responsibility”.
Togbe Korsi Nego VI, the paramount chief of Mepe, sits on his throne (Photo: Elikem Akpalu)
Were they warned?
The VRA says it did put out warnings and deputy minister Freda Prempeh accused victims of ignoring them.
The VRA’s website claims that on September 8, it notified “key stakeholders” of potential spillage in the coming days.
Four days later, they issued a press release “notifying the public of the consistent rise in water levels and the need to commence spilling”.
A car is destroyed by flood waters (Photo: Elikem Akpalu)
But this didn’t reach everyone. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa is the member of parliament for North Tongu, which includes Mepe.
Despite his position, he told Climate Home he was not among the “key stakeholders” that VRA says it warned on September 8.
“They kept us in the dark,” he said. “I just saw a press statement on the twelfth of September [but] they didn’t talk about the water volumes [or] how significant this will be.”
Accusing the VRA of “recklesness and negligence”, he added “nobody came here to engage communities, to prepare us to evacuate”.
Lessons to learn
Ghana is not the only country where warnings have failed to reach those who need them.
In August 2021, 12 disabled people drowned in a care home in Germany when the River Ahr burst its banks, with the local district authority was accused of ordering an evacuation too late.
A girl learns at the school in Mepe flood victims are sheltering in (Photo: Elikem Akpalu)
Ilan Kelman is a professor of disasters and health at University College London, specialising in disaster prevention. He said that it’s not enough for authorities like the VRA to be aware of a risk, they need to make potential victims aware.
“A successful warning has to involve the people affected from the beginning, long before any hazard appears, so that they know exactly what the issue is [and] have the choices and resources to settle elsewhere”, he said.
Nella Canales, a research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, said that it need to be clear whose job it is to manage a risk like flooding.
“There has to be communication,” she said.” It’s not enough to just say that the person receiving the risk is now accepting part of the risk management responsibilities. The risk owner should be the one who has the capacity to manage it.”
After pressure from MPs like Ablawka, the government announced a parliamentary inquiry to investigate what went wrong.
Awusife Kagbitor pictured at the door of the classroom she is sheltering in (Photo: Elikem Akpalu)
Until then, people like Awusife Kagbitor, a flood-hit resident sheltering in a cramped classroom with 15 members of her family, are left to fend for themselves.
“A lot of people came to take our pictures with a promise to help,” said Kagbitor. “So far, they’ve spoken in the wind.”
Government and VRA officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The post Ghana’s flood victims blame government for overflowing dam destruction appeared first on Climate Home News.
Ghana’s flood victims blame government for overflowing dam destruction
Government negotiators at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London this week look set to agree that, from 2027, the owners or operators of ships that fail to meet targets to reduce emissions from their fuel should be penalised financially.
Under a compromise proposal put forward by the chair of the talks, shipowners who fail to meet the targets for cleaner fuels will have to make up the difference through a combination of payments to those who have met the targets and money paid into a green fund administered by the IMO.
But, while all major country-negotiating blocks are engaging with this proposal, they remain divided on what these targets should be – and on how steep the penalty should be for failing to meet them.
Small island nations like the Marshall Islands want ambitious emissions-cutting targets and high fees, while some big developing countries like China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates want weak targets and low fees.
Governments are in closed-door talks on the issues this week, hoping to reach an agreement by Friday which can be officially signed off at the next set of talks in October.
Two-tier system
The head of the IMO, Arsenio Dominguez, told reporters on Monday that he was convinced an agreement would be reached this week, dismissing the need for a back-up plan. “It’s too easy to be negative in life – that’s not me,” he quipped.
The proposed system includes two targets to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per unit of energy used – one easier to meet and one harder. Those who fail to meet one or both of these targets can either buy “surplus units” from those that meet them or buy “remedial units” from the IMO, or a combination of the two.
The IMO’s new Net Zero Fund will spend the money from the “remedial units” to clean up the maritime sector and compensate for any negative impacts of the transition on developing economies, such as increases in the price of food due to higher shipping costs. Under the current proposal, the money will not be spent on climate action outside the maritime sector.
Governments have accepted that there will be two tiers of remedial units. Ship owners or operators that fail to meet the easier “base” emissions-intensity reduction targets should have to buy more expensive remedial units. Those that fail to meet the harder stretch targets get to buy cheaper remedial units.
Shipping’s remedial units
The price of the more expensive “Tier 2” units will be somewhere between $305-600 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent while the cheaper Tier 1 units will be $50-150 a tonne , according to different countries’ proposals outlined in the chair’s draft text.
A proposal from “Austria et al” – which is likely to include the European Union – calls for the highest prices of $600 and $150 for Tier 2 and Tier 1 units respectively.
The “Marshall Islands et al” – likely to consist of Pacific and Caribbean Islands and some African and Central American states – wants almost as high prices of $480 and $150 a tonne.
Japan wants the next highest – $450 and $100 – followed by a proposal from Argentina, China and unnamed others of $305 and $50.
Emissions intensity targets
Governments are also split on what the emissions targets should be. The Marshall Islands and its supporters want the highest ambition, followed in descending order by the Austria-led group, Japan, China and Argentina’s supporters, and finally Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s joint proposal with the lowest.
The Marshall Islands wants the stretch goal to be 100% emissions reductions straight away. This is a variation on their original proposal of a levy, where all emissions are priced at a flat rate. All other proposals want the targets to start very low and ramp up to around 100% by 2050.
At the IMO on Monday, ministers and negotiators from five Pacific nations told reporters they were disappointed that their levy proposal was no longer being considered.
Marshall Islands ambassador Albon Ishoda said this would have been “the best option” but that his nation and its “Caribbean, African and Central American partners and allies” can support the alternative compromise proposal “only if it prices 100% of emissions from the first tonne at no less than $150 a tonne”. “That is what climate science, economic modelling and justice demand,” he said.
He added later that another “strong red line” negotiating position was that trading of credits should not be part of the agreement. The compromise proposal’s surplus units, earned by those who exceed the emissions reduction targets, are a form of credit trading while its remedial units are not.
Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe said credit trading would benefit the “bigger countries, the richer countries” which have the “capacity” to make the green transition and punish smaller, developing countries.
Asked if his group would compromise further and accept an agreement if it didn’t get 100% of the emissions targeted straight away, Ishoda said: “Compromise is a necessary process. But, at this point, we are not ready to go back home and say we couldn’t get you the 100% required – because it’s based on the science that we have always been talking about.”
Kofe noted that an impact assessment carried out by the IMO found that a levy on all emissions was fairer, cheaper and more effective than other options under consideration. At the time this study was published last August, Brazil and Argentina labelled it “unacceptable” and “nonsensical”.
But Kofe called for compromise. “The nature of the challenge that we face right now is we can’t have China not being part of the solution or the US or the bigger countries. It has to be reached by consensus,” he said.
“I hope that we can try and appeal to the better conscience – the solution that we’re finding is for humanity not just for ourselves.”
The post Governments set to agree fees for ships that miss green targets appeared first on Climate Home News.
Governments set to agree fees for ships that miss green targets
Climate Change
Analysis: Nearly 60 countries have ‘dramatically’ cut plans to build coal plants since 2015
Nearly 60 countries have drastically scaled back their plans for building coal-fired power plants since the Paris Agreement in 2015, according to figures released by Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
Among those making cuts of 98% or more to their coal-power pipeline are some of the world’s biggest coal users, including Turkey, Vietnam and Japan.
The data also shows that 35 nations eliminated coal from their plans entirely over the past decade, including South Korea and Germany.
Global coal-fired electricity generation has increased since 2015 as more power plants have come online.
But the data on plants in “pre-construction” phases in 2024 shows what GEM calls a “dramatic drop” in proposals for future coal plants.
The number of countries still planning new coal plants has roughly halved to just 33, with the proposed capacity – the maximum electricity output of those proposed plants – dropping by around two-thirds.
China and India, the world’s largest coal consumers, have also both reduced their planned coal capacity by more than 60% over the same timeframe, from a total of 801 gigawatts (GW) to 298GW.
However, both countries still have a large number of coal projects in the pipeline and, together, made up 92% of newly proposed coal capacity globally in 2024.
‘Dramatic drop’
The Paris Agreement in 2015 had major implications for the use of fossil fuels. As the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned, coal has long been viewed by many as requiring a rapid phaseout.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) both see steep declines in “unabated” coal use by 2030 as essential to limit global warming to 1.5C.
But coal power capacity has continued to grow, largely driven by China.
Global capacity hit 2,175GW in 2024, up 1% from the year before and 13% higher than in 2015, according to GEM’s global coal-plant tracker.
This growth disguises a collapse in plans for future coal projects.
GEM’s latest analysis charts a decade of developments since the Paris Agreement and the “dramatic drop” in the number of coal plant proposals.
In 2015, coal power capacity in pre-construction – meaning plants that had been announced, or reached either the pre-permit or permitted stage – stood at 1,179GW.
By 2024, this had fallen to 355GW – a 70% drop. This indicates that countries are increasingly turning away from their earlier plans for a continued reliance on coal.
In total, 23 nations reduced the size of their proposals over this period and another 35 completely eliminated coal power from their future energy plans. Together, these 58 countries account for 80% of global fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions.
The chart below shows these changes, with China and India shown on a different x-axis due to the scale of their proposals. (See section below for more information.)
2015 to 2024, gigawatts (GW), in all countries that saw declines over this period. Red arrows indicate countries that no longer have any plans to build coal power plants. Source: Global Energy Monitor.
According to GEM, of the coal plants that were either under pre-construction or construction in 2015, 55% ended up being cancelled, a third were completed and the remainder are still under development.
Many of the nations that have phased coal out of their electricity plans are either very small or only had modest ambitions for building coal power in the first place.
However, the list also includes countries such as Germany and South Korea. These nations are both in the top 10 of global coal consumers, but their governments have committed to significantly reducing or, in Germany’s case, phasing out coal use by the late 2030s.
Turkey, Vietnam and Japan are among the big coal-driven economies that are now approaching having zero new coal plants in the works. All have around 2% of the planned capacity they had a decade ago.
Other major coal consumers have also drastically reduced their coal pipelines. Indonesia, the fifth-biggest coal user, has reduced its coal proposals by 90% and South Africa – the seventh-biggest – has cut its planned capacity by 83%.
Of the 68 countries that were planning to build new coal plants in 2015, just nine have increased their planned capacity. Around 85% of the planned increase in capacity by these nations is in Russia and its central Asian neighbours.
China and India
China is by far the world’s largest coal consumer, with India the second largest.
There was 44GW of coal power added to the global fleet last year. China was responsible for 30.5GW of this while retiring just 2.5GW, and India added 5.8GW while retiring 0.2GW.
Between them, these nations contributed 70% of the global coal-plant construction in 2024.
Nevertheless, there were signs of change as newly operating coal capacity around the world reached its lowest level in 20 years.
China and India have also seen significant drops in their pre-construction coal capacity over the past decade.
In 2015, China had 560GW of coal power in its pipeline and India had 241GW. Both nations have seen their proposed capacity drop by more than 60% to reach 217GW and 81GW, respectively.
While this is a significant reduction, both nations still have more coal capacity planned now than any other nation did in 2015. China’s current 217GW is roughly four times more than the 57GW Turkey was planning at that time.
GEM attributes the “slowdown” in China’s new proposals to the nation’s record-breaking solar and wind growth, which saw more electricity generation capacity installed in 2023 and 2024 than in the rest of the world combined.
As for India, GEM says the “notable declines” in coal proposals and commissions came after a “coal-plant investment bubble that went bust in the early 2010s”.
It notes that India is now “encouraging and fast-tracking the development of large coal plants”. The government has cited the need to meet the large nation’s growing electricity demand, especially due to the increased need for cooling technologies during heatwaves.
As other nations move away from the fossil fuel, coal capacity is likely to become increasingly concentrated in these two nations. Together, they made up 92% of the 116GW in newly proposed capacity last year.
The post Analysis: Nearly 60 countries have ‘dramatically’ cut plans to build coal plants since 2015 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Nearly 60 countries have ‘dramatically’ cut plans to build coal plants since 2015
David Attenborough’s voice has been a powerful guide for millions, educating audiences on the wonders of the natural world and the urgent need to protect it. His latest documentary, Ocean with David Attenborough, highlights the majesty and fragility of our ocean. The documentary is a breathtaking reminder of the deep connection between humanity and the ocean, while urging us to take action to safeguard these vital ecosystems. With a global Ocean Treaty on the horizon, this documentary calls for collective action to preserve the ocean that sustains life on Earth.
“This is the story of our ocean. And how we must write its next chapter together. For if we save the sea, we save our world. After a lifetime of filming our planet, I’m sure that nothing is more important.”
-David Attenborough
The powerful documentary film from Silverback Films and Open Planet Studios is set for release as a global cinema event from 8 May (2025), which also coincides with David Attenborough’s 99th birthday. The film will be available on streaming services globally on world oceans day on the 8th of June.
The film’s release is timed ahead of World Ocean Day (8 June 2025), June’s United Nations Ocean Conference 2025 where it will be screened (9 June – 13 June) in Nice, France, and midway through the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). As world leaders decide the fate of our ocean, Ocean with David Attenborough will show why ocean recovery is vital for stabilising our climate and securing a healthier future for us all, and how marine protection – if immediately implemented – can help to turn the tide.
The Ocean’s Vital Role in Our Planet’s Health
Overfishing, plastic pollution, rising temperatures, and habitat destruction are pushing marine life to the brink. In The Ocean: A Journey with David Attenborough, viewers are invited to witness the wonders of the ocean, from its deepest trenches to its vibrant coral reefs. The film is not just a visual spectacle but also an urgent call for action. Attenborough’s narration, as always, blends awe with concern, urging us to recognise the ocean’s importance and the urgency of preserving it.
“My lifetime has coincided with the great age of ocean discovery. Over the last hundred years, scientists and explorers have revealed remarkable new species, epic migrations and dazzling, complex ecosystems beyond anything I could have imagined as a young man. In this film, we share some of those wonderful discoveries, uncover why our ocean is in such poor health, and, perhaps most importantly, show how it can be restored to health. This could be the moment of change. Nearly every country on Earth has just agreed, on paper, to achieve this bare minimum and protect a third of the ocean. Together, we now face the challenge of making it happen.”
-David Attenborough
Why the Global Ocean Treaty Matters
The Global Ocean Treaty is more than just an environmental issue—it is a matter of global responsibility. All waters of the ocean are interconnected, and its health directly affects all of us. Climate change, pollution and overfishing are pushing the ocean to the brink of collapse. Food security and the livelihoods of billions of people hang in the balance.
After years of campaigning, the first ever Global Ocean Treaty was passed at the UN in 2023, but governments now need to sign it into law, to make protected areas a reality at sea. Time is running out, and reaching this target will require a strong and urgent political response.
Australia has signed but not ratified the Global Ocean Treaty. See the list of countries that have signed and/or ratified the high seas treaty here. The new government must prioritise ratifying as a matter of urgency.
Greenpeace’s call for action is clear: to ensure the protection of 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030. We are pushing for at least 60 countries to ratify by the end of 2025 in order to support the creation of marine protected areas that are off-limits to destructive activities like deep-sea mining and industrial fishing.
In our own backyard, industrial fishing and pollution is putting immense strain on unique and diverse ecosystems. That’s why Greenpeace is campaigning to establish a marine sanctuary in the Tasman Sea.
Our beautiful blue backyard, the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand has complex topography and nutrient-rich currents in these areas that create ideal conditions for species like tuna, whales, seabirds, and ancient corals to thrive. Establishing a sanctuary here would not only safeguard endangered species, like the South Pacific humpback whale and several types of albatross, but also provide a habitat for all marine life to thrive.
The Global Ocean Treaty is an essential tool for protecting life in the high seas. By creating new sanctuaries we can protect the ocean for the future. Join Greenpeace in advocating for the Australian Government to be a leader in protecting the ocean.
Together, we can protect the ocean that sustains us all.
David Attenborough’s New Documentary: A Call for Action on the Global Ocean Treaty
NYC and Long Island Could Lose 80,000 Homes to Flooding by 2040, Exacerbating Housing Crisis: Report
Indonesia Plans World’s Largest Deforestation Project for Production of Bioethanol Fuel and Food Crops
China’s First-Ever Sovereign Green Bond Hits Global Market: Will It Power Its Net Zero Ambitions?
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change11 months ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago