Connect with us

Published

on

Ten years ago this month, huge areas of my country were devastated by Typhoon Haiyan – the most powerful storm the Philippines had ever known.

Winds of almost 200 mph tore through communities claiming more than 6,000 innocent lives. My family’s hometown of Tacloban – only five metres above sea level – faced a wall of seawater over seven metres tall.

As the storm left a massive trail of devastation, I was delivering a speech at the Cop19 UN climate talks in Poland.

I could not reach my brother and it was another three days before I found out he was alive. But he personally carried 78 people to mass graves. To this day, many of the headstones in the local cemetery bear the names of ten people or more, with one date of demise.

Over the last few weeks, I have joined a band of climate and human rights activists on a 1,000km walk across the Phillipines to commemorate this catastrophe and demand climate justice.

Along the way I heard countless stories of loss from people who believe that Haiyan should have been a wake-up call for the world about the dangers of climate change.

Damaged areas along the coast in Tacloban City after Typhoon Haiyan hit the area. (Photo credit: Matimtiman//Greenpeace)

I continue my journey by ship. The campaigners, researchers, journalists and photographers on board the Rainbow Warrior have met residents of Bohol province’s ‘sinking islands’. Beautiful places that are slowly but surely losing ground to the waves as sea levels rise and typhoons are super-charged by a heating climate.

Yet even while I bear witness to their stories, there are some who want to silence me.

Shell lawsuit

Earlier this month we learned that Shell is suing Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International, threatening a damages claim for millions of dollars for protesting against its continued exploration and production of planet-heating fossil fuels.

As executive director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia and as one of the activists who tried to board a drilling platform Shell was moving to the North Sea earlier this year, I am named in the court documents.

The company is not only financially attacking Greenpeace, but is seeking an injunction to prevent Greenpeace protesting on its infrastructure at sea or in port anywhere in the world forever.

Far from heeding the wake-up call, or even hitting the snooze button, they are trying to smash the alarm clock.

That is why I will be joining Greenpeace activists today in sending a clear message to the fossil fuel industry that its intimidation tactics will not silence us.

Meet the Italian fugitive advising Emirati start-up Blue Carbon

Using kayaks and small boats, we will try to block an oil tanker from docking at a major Shell refinery near Batangas, a city on the edge of the Verde Island Passage.

This idyllic 10-mile wide channel separating the islands of Luzon and Mindoro is one of the most biodiverse marine habitats on Earth, home to countless rare and wonderful species.

But it now faces an existential threat. It has become the epicentre of my country’s expanding liquefied natural gas industry, with multinational giants pouring millions into constructing new power plants and LNG terminals.

Not only does this endanger marine life – an oil tanker spilled 800,000 litres of oil into the channel earlier this year – it will greatly increase my country’s fossil fuel dependence.

Ghana’s flood victims blame government for overflowing dam destruction

Our kayaks and banners are clearly no match for a multinational oil and gas corporation.

Record profits

But as world leaders gather in Dubai for the Cop28 climate talks, we want to remind the world about the damage that Shell and the rest of the fossil fuel industry are causing to the planet and those who live on it.

All eyes at Cop28 will be on whether governments can agree how to set up a fund for loss and damage to help the most vulnerable communities recover from climate disasters. But what about the companies who have made record profits and are continuing to pump the oil and gas that is roasting our planet?

Shell recently announced third quarter profits of $6.2 billion, and further share buybacks on top of the $23 billion it has returned to shareholders so far this year.

‘I hug you deep inside my heart’: In memory of Khalil Abu Yahia

Why should the Philippines be left with a $12 billion bill for Typhoon Haiyan, not to mention other fierce typhoons that came after and future more powerful storms that scientists predict, while oil companies pile up obscene profits?

So as I reflect on the countless tales of loss I have heard, I remain focused on the road ahead.

I will cling to my banner and paddle, and if necessary face Shell in court, and together we will show oil companies that the era of fossil fuels must end and that they must pay up for the climate vandalism they continue to perpetrate. The journey ahead may be long, but we’re not stopping here.

Yeb Sano is the executive director at Greenpeace Southeast Asia 

Shell response

A Shell spokesperson said: “The right to protest is fundamental and we respect it absolutely. But it must be done safely and lawfully.”

“Boarding a 72,000 metric ton moving vessel at sea was unlawful and extremely dangerous. A judge said Greenpeace protestors were ‘putting their lives and, indirectly, the lives of the crew at risk’. The legal costs to secure two court injunctions to prevent further boarding were significant. So were the costs for the companies who had to deal with the action at sea, for example by mobilising an extra safety vessel and increasing security at the port.

“The safety of the protestors – as well as the crew – was paramount. Rightly, we did not hesitate to put in place measures to protect all people involved. Shell and its contractors are entitled to recover the significant costs of responding to Greenpeace’s dangerous actions.

“Our intent has been misrepresented. This is simply about preventing activities at sea which could endanger peoples’ lives — as happened earlier this year — nothing more.”

The post Ten years on from Haiyan, Shell’s intimidation won’t silence me appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ten years on from Haiyan, Shell’s intimidation won’t silence me

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).