Connect with us

Published

on

US President Joe Biden has picked veteran Democratic official John Podesta as the US’s new top climate ambassador.

He replaces John Kerry who stepped down last month to campaign for Biden’s presidential bid.

The appointment received a mostly positive reaction from climate diplomats and campaigners, with praise for Podesta’s experience, contacts and knowledge. But some concerns were raised about him combining this new role with his domestically-focussed climate job.

Whereas Kerry was a climate envoy, Podesta will only be an adviser to the President. Unlike envoys, advisers do not have to be approved by the US Senate.

Podesta will oversee the US’s diplomacy up to and at Cop29 in Azerbaijan, which will start six days after the US election. His key task will be to negotiate a new long-term climate finance goal with developing countries.

Old hand

Seventy-five-year-old Podesta has been a high-profile figure in Washington DC for decades. He was president Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1998 to 2001 and acted as Barack Obama’s climate advisor in 2014-15, while the Paris Agreement was being negotiated.

In 2016, Podesta led Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential bid against Donald Trump. During the campaign, thousands of personal emails allegedly from Podesta were posted online after his account had been hacked.

Rich nations miss loss and damage fund deadline

In September 2022, Biden appointed him to oversee the rollout of the $369 billion green spending bill – the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Podesta has been a strong defender of the IRA as it faced accusations of protectionism from Europe, the Far East and across the developing world. He told the Financial Times last year that the US makes “no apologies” for prioritising American jobs in its push for clean energy.

Steady pair of hands

Most big US green campaign groups like the National Resources Defence Council and Center for Climate and Energy Solutions welcomed his appointment.

E3G analyst Alden Meyer told Climate Home Podesta was “the ideal pick for this job” as “he has the experience, relationships and deep understanding of climate policy and politics needed to do an outstanding job”. “Most importantly”, he added, “he has the full confidence of president Biden”.

Abroad, Podesta’s announcement was broadly welcomed too although campaigners criticised the US’s climate record.

Saudi Arabia cancels plan to raise oil pumping cap

As Brazil’s then environment minister, Izabella Teixeira worked with Podesta on the Paris Agreement. She told Climate Home he was a “good choice” and “a man that understands very well the power of the dialogue” and “a good player of the multilateral system”.

Peruvian diplomat Manuel Pulgar-Vidal worked with Podesta as president of Cop20 in Lima. Now with WWF, he told Climate Home he “warmly welcome[d]” the appointment”.

“His role in securing the Paris Agreement, and recently in implementing the IRA, is testament to his skill and dedication,” Pulgar-Vidal said.

Li Shuo, from the Asia Society, described him as a “steady pair of hands” who “has extensive experience working with China during the Obama years and knows his Chinese counterparts well”.

“I hope his appointment will ensure consistency as the US and China follow the engagement path outlined by the Sunnylands agreement reached last year”, Li added.

Skepticism

But Harjeet Singh, from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said the appointment “casts a shadow of doubt over the US’s commitment to global climate leadership”.

He said that Podesta was likely to focus on domestic action and “tread even more cautiously on the international stage than Kerry did”, suggesting that “international negotiations will become a secondary priority”.

“It reflects a continuous disregard for the US’s historical duty to provide developing nations with financial and technological support,” he said, adding “the international community grows increasingly skeptical of the US’s readiness to fulfill its global responsibilities.”

For Cop29 to succeed, rich nations must get their parliaments to agree more finance now

Mohammed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, told Climate Home he hoped Podesta could bring the “urgency and purpose” of the IRA to his international climate diplomacy.

But, he added, the US “remains the world’s ultimate petro-state” as it is the biggest producer of oil and gas and has the largest historic emissions.

“Pairing this with the US offering a paltry amount in climate finance at the recent Cop28 talks and it’s clear that Podesta has a big job on his hands to get the US to be part of the solution to the climate crisis, rather than being part of the problem”, he said.

The post John Podesta replaces Kerry as top US climate diplomat appeared first on Climate Home News.

John Podesta replaces Kerry as top US climate diplomat

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.

      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 resolution on the scheduling of the influential reports at five consecutive IPCC meetings since 2024 – despite drafting being well underway.

      (For more, see Carbon Brief’s write-up of discussions in Istanbul, Sofia, Hangzhou, Lima and Bangkok.)

      Reporting from the ENB from inside these meetings has highlighted that countries are split, broadly, into two groups – those that want all three reports to be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” in 2028, and tho