Re: The Long Ecological Revolution
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:41 pm
UN SCIENTISTS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE ON CAPITALISM; IMPLICATIONS FOR MARXISTS
UN Scientists Blame Climate Change on Capitalism; Implications for Marxists
By W. T. Whitney Jr.
November 5, 2021
Capitalism’s role in causing climate change now gains new visibility. Scientists advising world leaders present at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) on November 1-12 in Glasgow affirmed the association. To slow down climate change and mitigate its effects, they want action taken to reduce capitalism’s impact on the climate.
The climate crisis is worsening. For Monthly Review magazine, the COP26 gathering represents “a last-ditch effort to achieve a global solution on behalf of humanity as a whole.” The COP is the decision-making body of the 1995 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of 230 climate scientists from 66 countries, monitors climate-change trends and effects. Their observations, analyses, and recommendations appear in the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, which are issued periodically. IPCC scientists, who “have spent the last 3 years reviewing over 14000 studies,” are in the process now of releasing their Sixth Assessment Report, with 4000 pages.
On August 9, 2021 they released the Report’s Part I on the “physical science basis of climate change.” The IPCC will not release Part II, about impacts, and Part III, about mitigation, until early 2022, after all UN member states have reviewed the two sections. Key portions of the two have been leaked and, widely disseminated, they are the basis for this report.
Earlier Assessment Reports attributed climate change to human activity, unspecified. What with IPCC scientists linking expanded industrial production and consumerism with rising greenhouse gas emissions, capitalism enters the picture.
As summarized by the Monthly Review editors, Part II asserts that “Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems. Humans cannot… We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviors at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments. We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
An important finding of Part III, according to the editors, is that, “technological improvements that allow for relative decarbonization are not enough. Rather, what is required … ‘is fundamental structural changes at the global level’ … in production and consumption systems. Accelerated climate-change transitions require a shift to entirely new systems of sustainable development. ‘Transformative change’ must replace incremental changes favored by the status quo.”
Monthly Review indicated also that “for the first time in the IPCC process,” Part III called for a “turn to demand-side strategies, exploring cutbacks in energy use and across all economic sectors, as well as aggressively pursuing conservation and low-energy paths.”
Part III, crucially, “indicates at one point, referring to the analysis of Malm and others that: ‘The character of social and economic development produced by the nature of capitalist society [is] …ultimately unsustainable.’”
This is not a new idea. Advocates for environmental sustainability – Marxists, academic socialists, eco-socialists, environmentalists – have long concerned themselves with capitalism’s impact on the environment. Visionary Marxist scholar Kenneth Neill Cameron called for action almost 30 years ago. Concluding his book Marxism, a Living Science (International Publishers, 1993), he discusses global warming.
“Most Marxists write as though … social advance will take place in a social bubble shut off from nature. The scientific evidence, however, points to an era of environmental stress. The evidence was already strong in 1984 when this book first went to press … [It’s] a perspective beyond anything Marx and Engels had to confront … Clearly then the struggle for socialism will take place in a world racked by natural disasters of social origin.”
Cameron explores the curbing of fossil-based fuel and reliance on alternative energy. He suggests that, “there is only one way known to slow down and then eliminate these disasters, namely by phasing out the gases that cause them.” He declares that:
“[T]o fully replace the fossil-fuel-based corporate structure is beyond the capacity of capitalism and requires a socialist planned economy … As this struggle progresses it will become apparent that human survival will depend not just on clean energy but on a socio-economic system run by the people in their own interest. In short, a new dimension has been added to the struggle for socialism, which no longer aims only at universal “social justice” but at assuring human survival.”
Marxists like Cameron, however, realize that words and theory are not enough. From Marx, they know that merely to interpret the world falls short; “The point … is to change it.”
Marxists are able to frame climate-change action in a straightforward way. Inasmuch as their primary object is fighting capitalism, and capitalism causes climate change, and climate change endangers humanity, Marxists are duty-bound to involve themselves in the climate fight as learners, teachers and activists.
How would they do this, and what might the prospects be?
The opinions of the IPCC scientists, having circulated, constitute a kind of UN endorsement of fight-back against capitalism. To the extent that the UN position gains respect, capitalism becomes fair game for wider criticism within society as a whole. That’s helpful.
Marxists, self-described “scientific socialists” and prone to theorizing, analyzing problems, and strategizing, are prepared. As materialists, they embrace scientific inquiry and study of the natural world. The intersection of science and politics is familiar territory.
Marx himself modeled that approach. For example, he made the association between diminished productivity of soil in Britain and burgeoning industrialization. Having consulted with German scientists, he concluded that the movement of small farmers away from the land and into British factories, as industrial workers, had led to crops being under-fertilized. Because farmers had left the land, fertilizer in the form of animal and human excreta was in short supply.
Marxists are versatile. Having theorized, strategized, and acted in widely varying situations, they’ve shown that they probably would be able to confront the climate crisis. They’ve studied and defended waged labor laid low by the extraction of surplus value, small farmers displaced or oppressed by landlords, women (mostly) laboring in social reproduction for no pay, and those whose bodies, land, or subsoil resources have been plundered.
But capitalism won’t disappear quickly. After all, preparation for the way capitalism looked in the 1800s required a couple of centuries. As long as capitalism lasts, formation of a mass movement ready to defend environmental sustainability, and the climate, won’t happen soon, especially in the industrialized world.
For the sake of their jobs, wages and salaries, working people employed by entities dependent directly or indirectly on the market economy require economic stability and predictability. Under capitalism, that means an economy that produces and grows, always – one that, along the way, aggravates climate change. Working people, therefore, may find it more compelling to preserve the status quo than to pursue goals realizable only in the future, virtuous though they may be.
Relatedly, many wage workers, unemployed people, unionists, and seniors are leery of the environmental movement. They may resent the seemingly disproportionate involvement there of activists with comfortable life styles or object to the scarcity of black and brown people in such campaigns. It’s not yet clear how these twin projects, replacing capitalism and coping with climate change, are ultimately going to come together.
The possibility does emerge, however, that crisis-ridden capitalism, loaded with contradictions, will face some sort of a collapse. Waiting in the wings are disasters like pandemics, wars, massive default on debt, underproduction due to climate-caused catastrophes, oil shortage, and more. In chaotic situations like these, the building of a mass response to the climate crisis, one that is collective, anti-capitalist, and necessary, might come about.
The stimulus would derive from fears and perplexity. These, of course, could also lead to the authoritarian solutions of fascists and their like. Such a potential outcome adds to the urgency of preparing for the great mobilization of a socialist nature that we need.
Meanwhile, socialists and Marxists have promoted programs directed at protecting the environment and climate. These are the multifaceted programs often referred to as Green New Deals, as outlined in Mark Brodine’s book Green Strategy, in John Molyneux’s article in Climate & Capitalism, and by Sean Sweeney writing in New Economic Forum. As envisioned, they would accompany far-reaching proposals for progressive social and political change. Such undertakings are at risk of cooptation by corporations and other capitalist forces.
As the fight to ameliorate climate change proceeds, Marxists should take advantage of the teachability of their message. The idea that phenomena are connected – capitalism, expanding production, and rising emissions – is fact-based and logical. Lesser explanations blame the perversity of individuals. Exclusive focus on short-sightedness, disregard for the truth, ignorance, heartlessness, and/or immorality distracts from societal factors at work.
Class struggle will undoubtedly intensify in the years ahead. Faced with climate chaos, the upper classes, with their money, properties, and connections, will seek to wall themselves off from turmoil and victims, perhaps even hire enforcers to protect their remaining privileges.
Undone by climate change and its fallout – desertification, drought, floods, no homes, no livelihoods – people on the run worldwide become the rejects of resourced societies. Easily stigmatized, they serve as pawns for dividing and immobilizing the working class. And like nothing else, their plight calls for redistribution of wealth and resources, that is, if notions of the common good mean anything at all.
The object of this report has been to raise the consciousness of Marxists, socialists, and anyone else. Marxists ought to realize that they can contribute to and even lead collective efforts to head off climate change and to mitigate adverse effects. They have two major resources: the chain of causation from capitalism to climate change and anti-capitalism, which is their foundational tenet.
We are facing “the tragedy of our times;” and countries are “now so perilously close to the edge.” (Barbados prime minister Mia Mottley) Time is up; revolutionary socialists of all kinds need to set priorities. Let the discussion and work begin.
https://mltoday.com/un-scientists-blame ... -marxists/
************************************************************************
Fossil fuel companies have over 500 people at COP26, more than any single country, report says
By Angela Dewan, CNN
Updated 9:36 AM ET, Mon November 8, 2021
Glasgow, Scotland (CNN)More than 100 fossil fuel companies are understood to have sent 500 lobbyists to the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland, more than any single country at the summit, according to the environmental campaign group Global Witness.
The group analyzed the UN's provisional list of named corporate attendees and found at least 503 people linked with coal, oil and gas companies were at the conference. Fossil fuel use is the biggest driver of human-made climate change.
The list included people either directly affiliated with fossil fuel companies, including Shell, Gazprom and BP, as well as those attending as members of delegations and groups that act on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.
The analysis found that the fossil fuel lobby had around two dozen more than the largest country delegation.
They also outnumber the event's official Indigenous constituency by around two to one, as well as the number of delegates from the eight-worst affected countries by climate change over the last two decades -- Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, the Philippines, Mozambique, the Bahamas, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"The presence of hundreds of those being paid to push the toxic interests of polluting fossil fuel companies, will only increase the skepticism of climate activists who see these talks as more evidence of global leaders' dithering and delaying," said Murray Worthy, gas campaign leader at Global Witness.
"The scale of the challenge ahead means there is no time for us to be diverted by greenwashing or meaningless corporate promises not matched by delivery. It's time for politicians to show they are serious about ending the influence of big polluters over political decision-making and commit to a future where expert and activist voices are given center stage."
Canada, Russia and Brazil were among the countries that registered members of the fossil fuel industry for attendance.
When questioned on why the event's organizers had allowed so many people from the industry to attend, COP26 President Alok Sharma said: "At the end of the day, It is up to parties and observers who gets accreditation as part of their delegations."
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UN's climate agency, said that the UN did not invite or acknowledge any official delegation of fossil fuel companies, but that the agency had no control over which people each country registered as a delegate.
"It is really the sovereign right of every government to accredit every representative as part of its delegations, persons it deems appropriate," Espinosa said. "We do not allow open lobbying or open promotion of oil and gas, of course, that would be against the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the convention."
The analysis comes amid growing criticism from civil society groups that the event is not as inclusive as promised. COP26 President Alok Sharma has pointed to the need for social distancing as the reason some people, including those with observer status, have been unable to enter rooms where negotiations are taking place.
A recent report by the UN Environment Programme showed that many of the world's largest fossil fuel producers are still planning to ramp up production in the coming years, and will be burning far more fossil fuels in 2030 than what is consistent with global climate pledges.
The analysis used the plans of 15 major economies to estimate the world will produce roughly 110% more coal, oil, and gas in 2030 than what would be necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and 45% more than what would be consistent with 2 degrees.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/08/world/cop ... index.html
***********************************************************************
US must fulfill climate vows to win world's trust
By Yang Pingjian | China Daily | Updated: 2021-11-09 07:12
Long before the ongoing UN Climate Change Conference began in Glasgow on Oct 31, US President Joe Biden vowed to restore the US' climate leadership through a "new climate deal".
However, considering the US' flip-flop on climate change in the past, Biden's remark cannot be taken at face value.
First, if Biden wants Washington to regain the global climate leadership, the US has to take responsibility for its huge cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and take concrete actions to mitigate their effects.
That carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for 100-150 years means CO2 emissions from the late 19th century continue to affect the climate system even today. So advanced Western countries, especially the US, that have been spewing millions of tons of greenhouse gases to propel their economy for the past one and a half century or more have a far greater responsibility to take corrective measures.
According to available data, about 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 have been discharged into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and the United States accounts for more than 400 billion tons of that, far more than any other country. Even in terms of per capita cumulative carbon emissions since 1850, the US' share is at least eight times that of China and dozens of times of India.
The US used its first-mover advantage to emit far more CO2 than any other country, amassing enormous wealth and becoming the world's largest economy, but it has not taken responsibility for all those emissions, let alone making efforts to mitigate their effects.
Therefore, to regain the global climate leadership, the US should first face up to its emissions history and compensate developing countries for limiting their scope for emissions and thus restrain their economic development, and making the poor and most vulnerable countries the worst victims of climate change.
Second, the US must abandon unilateralism and stop putting its own interests above those of the rest of the world. From Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama to Donald Trump, US presidents have treated global climate rules as a trifling matter.
But countries around the world came together at the UN climate conference in December 2015 to finalize the Paris Agreement. The Obama administration did ratify the Paris Agreement in September 2016-only for the Donald Trump administration to withdraw the US from the climate pact the next year, citing "unfair economic burden" on the US as the reason.
To be fair to Biden, as soon as he entered the White House, he signed the instrument to return the US back to the Paris Agreement. But that came with a rider that Washington would regain its leadership in global climate governance.
It is thus evident that the US always puts its own interests first and doesn't care much about international agreements and rules, or global interests. But without abandoning unilateralism, convincing the international community of the continuity of its climate policy and abiding by international rules, the US cannot expect to play a key role in global climate governance.
Third, the US must take concrete actions to mitigate the effects of climate change, because it is not only the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases but also economically and technologically the most advanced country in the world. This is important because the US has not fulfilled its climate obligations till now. For example, it failed to reduce emissions by 7 percent by 2005 from the 1990 level-in fact, emissions from its energy sector rose by 19.2 percent from 1990 to 2005.
By failing to fulfill its global obligations and continuing to break international rules, the US has set a bad precedent for other developed countries. The US must realize that it can't continue business as usual while expecting to lead the global fight against climate change.
Fourth, since different countries are in different stages of development, they should set their own emissions reduction targets depending on their economic and technological prowess. That is precisely what is meant by common but differentiated responsibilities, which was formalized as international law at the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
When it comes to reducing emissions, the US does not practice what it preaches. Accusing other countries of wrongdoing or inaction cannot solve the climate problem either in the US or the rest of the world; on the contrary, it would undo the hard-won achievements of cooperation. Also, the US should stop doubting and challenging the global climate governance framework, abandon zero-sum games, and refrain from pointing fingers at others to hide its own failures and breaching of global climate rules.
As the largest developed country in the world, the US would do better to cooperate with the largest developing country, China, to address global and common challenges, such as climate change. Such cooperation should be based on equality and fairness, and the US should withdraw all trade terms that don't conform to green development, lift restrictions on the import of new energy products from China, and allow the export of green, low-carbon, clean energy and green equipment to China. For instance, the US cannot demand that China reduce its coal production on the one hand and export more coal to China on the other, and impose sanctions on Chinese photovoltaic companies in a naked display of unilateralism and hegemonism.
Considering that climate change poses a threat to people around the world, it is imperative that all countries work together on the principles of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities.
The international community welcomes the US' return to the global climate governance framework, but to win the trust of other countries the US has to fulfill all its global climate obligations and provide financial and technological support to developing countries to help them adapt to and mitigate climate change.
The author is a researcher at the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20211 ... 74177.html
Well, they had to say it, but they know what it will take to change it.
UN Scientists Blame Climate Change on Capitalism; Implications for Marxists
By W. T. Whitney Jr.
November 5, 2021
Capitalism’s role in causing climate change now gains new visibility. Scientists advising world leaders present at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) on November 1-12 in Glasgow affirmed the association. To slow down climate change and mitigate its effects, they want action taken to reduce capitalism’s impact on the climate.
The climate crisis is worsening. For Monthly Review magazine, the COP26 gathering represents “a last-ditch effort to achieve a global solution on behalf of humanity as a whole.” The COP is the decision-making body of the 1995 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of 230 climate scientists from 66 countries, monitors climate-change trends and effects. Their observations, analyses, and recommendations appear in the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, which are issued periodically. IPCC scientists, who “have spent the last 3 years reviewing over 14000 studies,” are in the process now of releasing their Sixth Assessment Report, with 4000 pages.
On August 9, 2021 they released the Report’s Part I on the “physical science basis of climate change.” The IPCC will not release Part II, about impacts, and Part III, about mitigation, until early 2022, after all UN member states have reviewed the two sections. Key portions of the two have been leaked and, widely disseminated, they are the basis for this report.
Earlier Assessment Reports attributed climate change to human activity, unspecified. What with IPCC scientists linking expanded industrial production and consumerism with rising greenhouse gas emissions, capitalism enters the picture.
As summarized by the Monthly Review editors, Part II asserts that “Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems. Humans cannot… We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviors at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments. We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
An important finding of Part III, according to the editors, is that, “technological improvements that allow for relative decarbonization are not enough. Rather, what is required … ‘is fundamental structural changes at the global level’ … in production and consumption systems. Accelerated climate-change transitions require a shift to entirely new systems of sustainable development. ‘Transformative change’ must replace incremental changes favored by the status quo.”
Monthly Review indicated also that “for the first time in the IPCC process,” Part III called for a “turn to demand-side strategies, exploring cutbacks in energy use and across all economic sectors, as well as aggressively pursuing conservation and low-energy paths.”
Part III, crucially, “indicates at one point, referring to the analysis of Malm and others that: ‘The character of social and economic development produced by the nature of capitalist society [is] …ultimately unsustainable.’”
This is not a new idea. Advocates for environmental sustainability – Marxists, academic socialists, eco-socialists, environmentalists – have long concerned themselves with capitalism’s impact on the environment. Visionary Marxist scholar Kenneth Neill Cameron called for action almost 30 years ago. Concluding his book Marxism, a Living Science (International Publishers, 1993), he discusses global warming.
“Most Marxists write as though … social advance will take place in a social bubble shut off from nature. The scientific evidence, however, points to an era of environmental stress. The evidence was already strong in 1984 when this book first went to press … [It’s] a perspective beyond anything Marx and Engels had to confront … Clearly then the struggle for socialism will take place in a world racked by natural disasters of social origin.”
Cameron explores the curbing of fossil-based fuel and reliance on alternative energy. He suggests that, “there is only one way known to slow down and then eliminate these disasters, namely by phasing out the gases that cause them.” He declares that:
“[T]o fully replace the fossil-fuel-based corporate structure is beyond the capacity of capitalism and requires a socialist planned economy … As this struggle progresses it will become apparent that human survival will depend not just on clean energy but on a socio-economic system run by the people in their own interest. In short, a new dimension has been added to the struggle for socialism, which no longer aims only at universal “social justice” but at assuring human survival.”
Marxists like Cameron, however, realize that words and theory are not enough. From Marx, they know that merely to interpret the world falls short; “The point … is to change it.”
Marxists are able to frame climate-change action in a straightforward way. Inasmuch as their primary object is fighting capitalism, and capitalism causes climate change, and climate change endangers humanity, Marxists are duty-bound to involve themselves in the climate fight as learners, teachers and activists.
How would they do this, and what might the prospects be?
The opinions of the IPCC scientists, having circulated, constitute a kind of UN endorsement of fight-back against capitalism. To the extent that the UN position gains respect, capitalism becomes fair game for wider criticism within society as a whole. That’s helpful.
Marxists, self-described “scientific socialists” and prone to theorizing, analyzing problems, and strategizing, are prepared. As materialists, they embrace scientific inquiry and study of the natural world. The intersection of science and politics is familiar territory.
Marx himself modeled that approach. For example, he made the association between diminished productivity of soil in Britain and burgeoning industrialization. Having consulted with German scientists, he concluded that the movement of small farmers away from the land and into British factories, as industrial workers, had led to crops being under-fertilized. Because farmers had left the land, fertilizer in the form of animal and human excreta was in short supply.
Marxists are versatile. Having theorized, strategized, and acted in widely varying situations, they’ve shown that they probably would be able to confront the climate crisis. They’ve studied and defended waged labor laid low by the extraction of surplus value, small farmers displaced or oppressed by landlords, women (mostly) laboring in social reproduction for no pay, and those whose bodies, land, or subsoil resources have been plundered.
But capitalism won’t disappear quickly. After all, preparation for the way capitalism looked in the 1800s required a couple of centuries. As long as capitalism lasts, formation of a mass movement ready to defend environmental sustainability, and the climate, won’t happen soon, especially in the industrialized world.
For the sake of their jobs, wages and salaries, working people employed by entities dependent directly or indirectly on the market economy require economic stability and predictability. Under capitalism, that means an economy that produces and grows, always – one that, along the way, aggravates climate change. Working people, therefore, may find it more compelling to preserve the status quo than to pursue goals realizable only in the future, virtuous though they may be.
Relatedly, many wage workers, unemployed people, unionists, and seniors are leery of the environmental movement. They may resent the seemingly disproportionate involvement there of activists with comfortable life styles or object to the scarcity of black and brown people in such campaigns. It’s not yet clear how these twin projects, replacing capitalism and coping with climate change, are ultimately going to come together.
The possibility does emerge, however, that crisis-ridden capitalism, loaded with contradictions, will face some sort of a collapse. Waiting in the wings are disasters like pandemics, wars, massive default on debt, underproduction due to climate-caused catastrophes, oil shortage, and more. In chaotic situations like these, the building of a mass response to the climate crisis, one that is collective, anti-capitalist, and necessary, might come about.
The stimulus would derive from fears and perplexity. These, of course, could also lead to the authoritarian solutions of fascists and their like. Such a potential outcome adds to the urgency of preparing for the great mobilization of a socialist nature that we need.
Meanwhile, socialists and Marxists have promoted programs directed at protecting the environment and climate. These are the multifaceted programs often referred to as Green New Deals, as outlined in Mark Brodine’s book Green Strategy, in John Molyneux’s article in Climate & Capitalism, and by Sean Sweeney writing in New Economic Forum. As envisioned, they would accompany far-reaching proposals for progressive social and political change. Such undertakings are at risk of cooptation by corporations and other capitalist forces.
As the fight to ameliorate climate change proceeds, Marxists should take advantage of the teachability of their message. The idea that phenomena are connected – capitalism, expanding production, and rising emissions – is fact-based and logical. Lesser explanations blame the perversity of individuals. Exclusive focus on short-sightedness, disregard for the truth, ignorance, heartlessness, and/or immorality distracts from societal factors at work.
Class struggle will undoubtedly intensify in the years ahead. Faced with climate chaos, the upper classes, with their money, properties, and connections, will seek to wall themselves off from turmoil and victims, perhaps even hire enforcers to protect their remaining privileges.
Undone by climate change and its fallout – desertification, drought, floods, no homes, no livelihoods – people on the run worldwide become the rejects of resourced societies. Easily stigmatized, they serve as pawns for dividing and immobilizing the working class. And like nothing else, their plight calls for redistribution of wealth and resources, that is, if notions of the common good mean anything at all.
The object of this report has been to raise the consciousness of Marxists, socialists, and anyone else. Marxists ought to realize that they can contribute to and even lead collective efforts to head off climate change and to mitigate adverse effects. They have two major resources: the chain of causation from capitalism to climate change and anti-capitalism, which is their foundational tenet.
We are facing “the tragedy of our times;” and countries are “now so perilously close to the edge.” (Barbados prime minister Mia Mottley) Time is up; revolutionary socialists of all kinds need to set priorities. Let the discussion and work begin.
https://mltoday.com/un-scientists-blame ... -marxists/
************************************************************************
Fossil fuel companies have over 500 people at COP26, more than any single country, report says
By Angela Dewan, CNN
Updated 9:36 AM ET, Mon November 8, 2021
Glasgow, Scotland (CNN)More than 100 fossil fuel companies are understood to have sent 500 lobbyists to the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland, more than any single country at the summit, according to the environmental campaign group Global Witness.
The group analyzed the UN's provisional list of named corporate attendees and found at least 503 people linked with coal, oil and gas companies were at the conference. Fossil fuel use is the biggest driver of human-made climate change.
The list included people either directly affiliated with fossil fuel companies, including Shell, Gazprom and BP, as well as those attending as members of delegations and groups that act on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.
The analysis found that the fossil fuel lobby had around two dozen more than the largest country delegation.
They also outnumber the event's official Indigenous constituency by around two to one, as well as the number of delegates from the eight-worst affected countries by climate change over the last two decades -- Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, the Philippines, Mozambique, the Bahamas, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
"The presence of hundreds of those being paid to push the toxic interests of polluting fossil fuel companies, will only increase the skepticism of climate activists who see these talks as more evidence of global leaders' dithering and delaying," said Murray Worthy, gas campaign leader at Global Witness.
"The scale of the challenge ahead means there is no time for us to be diverted by greenwashing or meaningless corporate promises not matched by delivery. It's time for politicians to show they are serious about ending the influence of big polluters over political decision-making and commit to a future where expert and activist voices are given center stage."
Canada, Russia and Brazil were among the countries that registered members of the fossil fuel industry for attendance.
When questioned on why the event's organizers had allowed so many people from the industry to attend, COP26 President Alok Sharma said: "At the end of the day, It is up to parties and observers who gets accreditation as part of their delegations."
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UN's climate agency, said that the UN did not invite or acknowledge any official delegation of fossil fuel companies, but that the agency had no control over which people each country registered as a delegate.
"It is really the sovereign right of every government to accredit every representative as part of its delegations, persons it deems appropriate," Espinosa said. "We do not allow open lobbying or open promotion of oil and gas, of course, that would be against the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the convention."
The analysis comes amid growing criticism from civil society groups that the event is not as inclusive as promised. COP26 President Alok Sharma has pointed to the need for social distancing as the reason some people, including those with observer status, have been unable to enter rooms where negotiations are taking place.
A recent report by the UN Environment Programme showed that many of the world's largest fossil fuel producers are still planning to ramp up production in the coming years, and will be burning far more fossil fuels in 2030 than what is consistent with global climate pledges.
The analysis used the plans of 15 major economies to estimate the world will produce roughly 110% more coal, oil, and gas in 2030 than what would be necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and 45% more than what would be consistent with 2 degrees.
https://us.cnn.com/2021/11/08/world/cop ... index.html
***********************************************************************
US must fulfill climate vows to win world's trust
By Yang Pingjian | China Daily | Updated: 2021-11-09 07:12
Long before the ongoing UN Climate Change Conference began in Glasgow on Oct 31, US President Joe Biden vowed to restore the US' climate leadership through a "new climate deal".
However, considering the US' flip-flop on climate change in the past, Biden's remark cannot be taken at face value.
First, if Biden wants Washington to regain the global climate leadership, the US has to take responsibility for its huge cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and take concrete actions to mitigate their effects.
That carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for 100-150 years means CO2 emissions from the late 19th century continue to affect the climate system even today. So advanced Western countries, especially the US, that have been spewing millions of tons of greenhouse gases to propel their economy for the past one and a half century or more have a far greater responsibility to take corrective measures.
According to available data, about 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 have been discharged into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and the United States accounts for more than 400 billion tons of that, far more than any other country. Even in terms of per capita cumulative carbon emissions since 1850, the US' share is at least eight times that of China and dozens of times of India.
The US used its first-mover advantage to emit far more CO2 than any other country, amassing enormous wealth and becoming the world's largest economy, but it has not taken responsibility for all those emissions, let alone making efforts to mitigate their effects.
Therefore, to regain the global climate leadership, the US should first face up to its emissions history and compensate developing countries for limiting their scope for emissions and thus restrain their economic development, and making the poor and most vulnerable countries the worst victims of climate change.
Second, the US must abandon unilateralism and stop putting its own interests above those of the rest of the world. From Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama to Donald Trump, US presidents have treated global climate rules as a trifling matter.
But countries around the world came together at the UN climate conference in December 2015 to finalize the Paris Agreement. The Obama administration did ratify the Paris Agreement in September 2016-only for the Donald Trump administration to withdraw the US from the climate pact the next year, citing "unfair economic burden" on the US as the reason.
To be fair to Biden, as soon as he entered the White House, he signed the instrument to return the US back to the Paris Agreement. But that came with a rider that Washington would regain its leadership in global climate governance.
It is thus evident that the US always puts its own interests first and doesn't care much about international agreements and rules, or global interests. But without abandoning unilateralism, convincing the international community of the continuity of its climate policy and abiding by international rules, the US cannot expect to play a key role in global climate governance.
Third, the US must take concrete actions to mitigate the effects of climate change, because it is not only the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases but also economically and technologically the most advanced country in the world. This is important because the US has not fulfilled its climate obligations till now. For example, it failed to reduce emissions by 7 percent by 2005 from the 1990 level-in fact, emissions from its energy sector rose by 19.2 percent from 1990 to 2005.
By failing to fulfill its global obligations and continuing to break international rules, the US has set a bad precedent for other developed countries. The US must realize that it can't continue business as usual while expecting to lead the global fight against climate change.
Fourth, since different countries are in different stages of development, they should set their own emissions reduction targets depending on their economic and technological prowess. That is precisely what is meant by common but differentiated responsibilities, which was formalized as international law at the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
When it comes to reducing emissions, the US does not practice what it preaches. Accusing other countries of wrongdoing or inaction cannot solve the climate problem either in the US or the rest of the world; on the contrary, it would undo the hard-won achievements of cooperation. Also, the US should stop doubting and challenging the global climate governance framework, abandon zero-sum games, and refrain from pointing fingers at others to hide its own failures and breaching of global climate rules.
As the largest developed country in the world, the US would do better to cooperate with the largest developing country, China, to address global and common challenges, such as climate change. Such cooperation should be based on equality and fairness, and the US should withdraw all trade terms that don't conform to green development, lift restrictions on the import of new energy products from China, and allow the export of green, low-carbon, clean energy and green equipment to China. For instance, the US cannot demand that China reduce its coal production on the one hand and export more coal to China on the other, and impose sanctions on Chinese photovoltaic companies in a naked display of unilateralism and hegemonism.
Considering that climate change poses a threat to people around the world, it is imperative that all countries work together on the principles of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities.
The international community welcomes the US' return to the global climate governance framework, but to win the trust of other countries the US has to fulfill all its global climate obligations and provide financial and technological support to developing countries to help them adapt to and mitigate climate change.
The author is a researcher at the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20211 ... 74177.html
Well, they had to say it, but they know what it will take to change it.