Connect with us

Published

on

Largely because of the US not paying its fair share, the developed world has failed to meet its promise to provide $100 billion in climate finance to the developing world.

For years, this has sowed distrust and hindered negotiations with major emerging economies like China and India.

But on October 16, US treasury secretary Janet Yellen told Sky News that the US can “certainly” afford to support Israel’s war on Palestine as well as Ukraine’s war against Russia.

This is a prime example of how militaries do not only contribute to the climate crisis through their emissions, they suck up funds which could be used to tackle climate change.

Big emitters

The military contribution to climate change has up to now been largely overlooked.

This is partly deliberate. The US government in 1997 said it would only sign the Kyoto agreement if the military were explicitly exempted from reporting and reducing emissions.

This exemption was lifted in 2015, but reporting still remains voluntary and limited.

Movement mourns ‘driving force for climate justice’ Saleemul Huq

Yet military jets, ships and tanks are some of the biggest users of fossil fuels. Estimates of global military emissions suggest it makes up to 5.5% of total global emissions, more than double that of the civil aviation sector.

Compared to country emissions, the global military would rank as the fourth biggest polluter, with total emissions bigger than that of Russia.

Funds diverted

Emissions are only part of the picture. As Biden’s recent call for increased military aid to Ukraine and Israel makes clear, military spending also leads to diversion of potential resources from climate action.

Sometimes this happens very directly. In the wake of Russia’s invasion in 2022, the UK government announced that it would shift underspending from its climate finance budget to partially finance a £1bn ($1.2bn) military support package for Ukraine.

China objects to UN fund warnings on solar’s forced labour risks

More often, it’s represented in the way military spending – both for wars and to counter identified long-term strategic ‘threats’ – is consistently prioritised over climate spending.

The result has been rising tensions between major powers such as  the US and China and record global military spending, reaching a total of $2.3 trillion in 2022, even while the same countries consistently fail to raise finance to cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

Nato’s target

This looks set to get worse. The world’s largest military alliance, Nato, has committed for all its members to spend at least 2% of GDP on the military.

A recent report by Transnational Institute, StopWapenhandel and Tipping Point, Climate Crossfire, reveals that this would lead to a total spending of $11.8 trillion by 2028.

That’s enough to pay for the rich world’s promised $100 billion a year of climate finance for 118 years.

Rooftop solar panels offer fragile lifeline to besieged Gazans

It would also lead to estimated additional military emissions of 467 million tonnes, more than the amount emitted by the United Kingdom in one year. There are efforts to structurally embed these military financing efforts so they are difficult to reverse.

The EU Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP), adopted in July 2023, for example,  pushes for measures structurally to ‘reinforc[e] the competitiveness and resilience of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) in the field of ammunition and missiles’. The goal is to lock in military spending, which would also lock in carbon emissions for years to come.

Many costs of war

The key winners of this military bonanza are the arms and security companies, whose shares and profits have boomed in the last few years.

They are also using their increased political influence to expand their export markets, including to countries most impacted by climate change. NATO members, for example,  export arms to 39 of the 40 world’s most climate vulnerable nations.

These exports fuel conflicts and bolster authoritarian regimes which will only weaken the resilience of communities to deal with the immense costs of climate breakdown.

The terrible human toll of war should be enough to demand peace, but the evidence is growing that war is now also costing us the earth.

Rich nations offer loans not grants for Vietnam’s coal transition

That does not mean changing direction will not be easy. Once started, wars tend to polarise opinion and deepen the divide and distrust.

Resolving them often involves addressing deep-seated historical injustices and requires fundamental shifts in foreign policy by major powers like the US and Russia.

However, the clear lesson of the climate crisis is that extreme weather knows no national boundary and does not distinguish by ethnicity or religion.  There is no military tank, naval ship or fighter jet that can protect us from climate breakdown.

At Cop28, it is time for the international community to confront the military ‘elephant’ in the room, demand ceasefires, and explore ways to divest from militarism and invest instead in building a planet that is just, peaceful and safe for everyone.

Nick Buxton is the knowledge hub co-ordinator of the Transnational Institute. Deborah Burton is the co-founder of Tipping Point North-South.

The post Wars are closing down the window for climate action appeared first on Climate Home News.

Wars are closing down the window for climate action

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.