Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Lobbying for a carbon fee and dividend

News

What progress was made on climate negotiation at COP27 – the CCI analysis

by

COP27 was, as probably expected, not as successful as hoped, with the usual last minute compromises and climb downs. Alok Sharma was once again, visibly upset… “Emissions peaking before 2025 as the science tells us is necessary? Not in this text,”… “Clear follow-through on the phase-down of coal? Not in this text. Clear commitment to phase out all fossil fuels? Not in this text. The energy text? Weakened in the final minutes.” ,The most successful outcome was that the issue of Loss and Damage payments is now firmly on the agenda.

This excerpt from CCI’s newsletter summarises what CCI feels has been gained at COP27. The main takeaway is that there is now recognition of the need for financial transformation to facilitate “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment”……..

Addressing Loss & Damage

The COP27 achieved the major historic breakthrough most said would be necessary, and yet seemed unworkable: A consensus agreement to create a fund to address climate-related loss and damage, particularly for the most vulnerable and resource-stressed countries. The commitment to create a fund is a breakthrough, but so is the establishment of a Transitional Committee to inform the design of the funding facility and to coordinate the earmarking and mobilization of loss and damage response funding through existing institutions, over the coming year. 

Advocates and stakeholders from across the world played a role in building consensus for a loss and damage fund, and the immediate work to begin discovering new flows of finance from existing sources.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan—the formal COP27 outcome agreement—also calls for comphrensive operational reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and international financial institutions (IFIs). The projected reforms are needed to better account for vulnerability and related spending needs, uneven climate risk, and the foundational value of mitigation, adaptation, and resilience measures. The text also calls for developing:

“a new vision and commensurate operational model, channels and instruments that are fit for the purpose of adequately addressing the global climate emergency, including deploying a full suite of instruments, from grants to guarantees and non-debt instruments, taking into account debt burdens, and to address risk appetite, with a view to substantially increasing climate finance;”

The COP27 is the first to agree to such institutional reforms to value vulnerability, a recognition of the need for climate-aligned debt relief. The text effectively recognizes the limits of debt-based climate finance, due to the systemic nature of “interlinked global crises [like] climate change and biodiversity loss” and their connection to “Stresses that the increasingly complex and challenging global geopolitical situation and its impact on the energy, food and economic situations”.

The systems lens

The system lens is referenced for food, energy, and finance, though in different ways. This is no small thing, as nations and communities across the world are faced right now, today, with urgent short-term decisions about how to secure basic supplies in a time of scarcity and soaring prices. The emerging systems transformation consensus—even if it lacks the urgently needed details about next steps—lays a foundation for future work towards successful climate resilient development.

The Preamble concludes with a detailed and specific admonition that efforts to meet short-term food, energy, and finance needs, or to achieve recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, “should not be used as a pretext for backtracking, backsliding or de-prioritizing climate action”.

The Preamble also highlights the need for “sustainable lifestyles”, including modes of consumption and production, as well as the need for “an approach to education that promotes a shift in lifestyles while fostering patterns of development and sustainability based on care, community and cooperation”. This is not, as has been feared in the past, a way of shifting responsibility to individuals; it is, instead, a signal that Parties are in agreement about the need to surround consumers with better choices.

Energy transition

The great disappointment for many is the language around mitigation, or decarbonization of energy systems. A diverse coalition of countries, including Tuvalu, the United States, and India, nearly achieved a de facto fossil fuel non-proliferation agreement, with language that called for the phase out of all fossil fuels, naming coal, oil, and gas explicitly. That language was replaced, however, with softer language (in paragraph 16, under section IV. Mitigation), which calls for:

“accelerating efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”

In the Energy section, above Mitigation, the text cites:

“the urgent need for immediate, deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions by Parties across all applicable sectors, including through increase in low-emission and renewable energy, just energy transition partnerships and other cooperative actions.”

Taken together, this language worries many, who see “low emissions” as code for natural gas, and note the word “increase” as a signal that countries intend to increase their reliance on natural gas. It is important to note that any natural gas system that leaks methane cannot be considered “unabated” or “low emissions”, and the Sharm el-Sheikh text—as noted above—warns against “backtracking, backsliding or de-prioritizing climate action”.

The cost to all of us of getting that wrong, and letting climate emergency run away unchecked, would be intolerable. Financial institutions and regulators will have little choice but to find ways to identify and prevent that kind of destructive activity.

Food systems received unprecedented attention at COP27, with four pavilions, and with major announcements like new targets from the Good Food Finance Network High Ambition Group, covering $113 billion in business activity.

In his remarks to the Closing Plenary, Simon Stiell, the new Executive Secretary of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, quoted Maya Angelou’s “On the Pulse of Morning”:

“The horizon leans forward, Offering you space to place new steps of change.”

The words are more than poetry; they describe the way the COP27 outcome could result in transformational forward progress over the coming years. The COP27 does open important spaces in which to place new steps of change:

  • Though not detailed enough in reference to food systems transformation, the new four-year work plan for the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture is a clear space to undertake the “comprehensive and synergetic” innovations and actions called for in the Preamble of the Sharm el-Sheikh text.
  • The detailed call for transformation of International Financial Institutions will be critical for most efficiently curating capital flows to address countries disparate and overlapping needs relating to mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, and resilience-building.
  • The COP27 outcome for the first time recognizes “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment”; this is an invitation for national and international cooperative action to safeguard and advance that right.
  • On international cooperative climate action, work has advanced under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement, with a diversification of the tools and instruments recognized as “non-market approaches”. Such “NMAs” were described by the U.S. as “not quid pro quo emissions trading” but rather cooperative direct interventions that enhance overall capability. NMAs can be suites of policies, incentives, and direct investments that improve conditions for the mainstreaming of climate-smart finance, trade, and practice, across whole economies.

Support from heads of state and international institutions for creative collaborative measures to scale up adaptation finance creates a new political environment for addressing needs of the vulnerable.

In parallel processes, we also saw important progress.

  • Though not formally adopted as legal standards, new recommendations from the UN High-Level Expert Group on net zero integrity are rigorous and lucid. They note we will not be able to keep to 1.5°C if accounting manipulations are possible and emphasize real-world physical reductions in emissions, to reduce the geophysical impact of our industries. Offsetting should be used only to facilitate additional emissions reductions beyond those needed to align with 1.5°C and then only in limited verifiable cases.
  • The Global Center on Adaptation and the African Development Bank announced new funding up to $25 billion to accelerate adaptation action in Africa, and adaptation-related finance and commerce gained unprecedented attention. Such activities can create value that supports economic progress across all of society, and they can be bolstered by financial innovations being sought across the international financial system.
  • The High-Level Climate Champions have stewarded an impressive list of new climate action initiatives by non-state actors, and point to the emerging “all of society” approach to cooperative climate crisis response.
  • Also external to the COP process, the Good Food Finance Network activated the work plan for creation of a Co-Investment Platform for Food Systems Transformation, to crowd in funding from public, private, multilateral, and philanthropic sources, to support the mainstreaming of healthy, sustainably produced food.

Our chance to influence the G20 – Citizens’ Climate International asks G20 leaders to ‘Follow the Money’

by

G20-Leaders-Follow-the-Money (1)Citizens Climate International is asking G20 leaders to ‘’Follow the Money”…….’It is similar to the #G7 #SteerUsToSafety campaign where you all asked friends and family to send letters and secured 1194 letters from 80 countries.  We know that German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz, the G7 was informed directly of all your work. Together across the planet we can empower the G20 leaders to follow the money’. 

The newly published United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report states that the world is not on track to reach the Paris Agreement goals. Global temperatures could reach 2.8°C by the end of the century. The world must cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 to avoid global catastrophe. G20 countries are responsible for 80% of carbon emissions, Africa 3%. The further exploitation of fossil fuels must stop but the transition to a decarbonised world has to be a just transition which is fair to the countries which have historically been least responsible for global warming and are currently suffering the worst effects of climate change.

The text of the letter to G20 leaders states…

Thank you for your service to your country and the world.

We are in a climate emergency and already feeling the effects across the globe. By January 1, 2030 the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 45% compared to 2005 levels. We are not on track. 

Not all countries are equally culpable in creating the climate emergency we are now in. The G20 is responsible for 80% of total GHG emissions. Africa, as a continent, is only responsible for 3%. 

We need a measured retreat from fossil fuels.

In the past six weeks Vanuatu, Timor Leste, the European Parliament and the World Health Organization have joined the call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The three pillars of the treaty are:

  1. End expansion of new fossil fuels projects
  2. Phase out current production in line with 1.5ºC
  3. Enable a global just transition for every worker, community & country.

It is within your capacity to create a strong COVID recovery, finance loss and damage, finance successful adaptation, unwind our economies from fossil fuels and cut GHGs in line with the science while shielding low and middle income households.

G20 leaders you just need to follow the money.

Here are four solid suggestions:

  1. Impose a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies  
  2. Redirect all harmful subsidies towards an equitable and resilient future 
  3. Follow Aotearoa New Zealand’s lead and require financial institutions to disclose climate risks 
  4. Enact carbon pricing policies that return revenues back to citizens on an equal per capita basis. This will have an added benefit of reducing income inequality while cutting GHGs.

Most importantly, these policies must be rooted in human rights and gender justice

Please go here for more information about this campaign:

Thank you for considering the contents of  this email.

 The petition.  

G20-Leaders-Follow-the-Money Facts PDF

Copy of Petition document for hard copy print out

Let’s send a strong message to the G20 that the world needs us to stop financing fossil fuels now!

Tell your MP – new report confirms that governments not only shouldn’t develop new oil and gas fields but also do not need to…

by

A new report published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is warning that there is a large consensus amongst all published studies that opening new gas and oil fields will not be compatible with 1.5C. The study did not look at coal as that has been extensively addressed elsewhere.  Worth letting your MP know and if you haven’t already done so mentioning the findings in your response to the NZ consultation! For more analysis see Carbon Brief.

Key messages from the Executive Summary of Navigating Energy Transitions: Mapping the road to 1.5C:

  • According to a large consensus across multiple modelled climate and energy pathways, developing any new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting
    warming to 1.5°C. Global oil and gas production and consumption must decrease by at least 65% by 2050.
  • Governments should create enabling environments for redirecting both public and private capital flows toward the clean energy transition, including the deployment of additional solar and wind capacity. The annual investment gap for the required wind and solar deployment amounts to USD 450 billion until 2030. Forecasts indicate that up to USD 570 billion will be spent every year in new oil and gas development and exploration during the same period.
  • There is no room for new fossil import infrastructure in Europe in 1.5°C-aligned gas phase-out pathways. Existing import capacity can meet the gas demand for Europe in the medium- and longer-term. In 2022 and 2023, the short-term supply crunch and its potentially dire consequences cannot be alleviated in time by newly added gas capacity.

The IISD therefore states that to remain within 1.5C oil and gas production needs to decline respectively by 15% and 30% by 2030, and by 65% by 2050, compared to 2020 levels. Unless the current fields’ operations are significantly curtailed new development would either generate stranded assets or push the world beyond 1.5C.

The report discusses what is required to enable wind and solar to replace oil and gas “since they provide the most greenhouse gas mitigation potential at the lowest cost from all currently available options in all sectors”. (IPCC, 2022)…..

Our report finds that policies currently deployed in support of renewable energy fall short of these objectives: according to the selected IPCC scenarios and IEA’s NZE scenario, by 2030, annual capacity additions should be at least 2.5 times higher for wind and 1.5 times higher for solar energy compared to current policy forecasts (Figure ES3). All other analyzed scenarios broadly confirm the need to rapidly add far more wind and solar capacity than planned, and generally point to even higher required rates of deployment for the two technologies.

It also addresses the implications of the war in Ukraine…..

In 2022, the energy market disruptions due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the consequent economic sanctions on Russia have strained global gas supplies. They bring questions on the present and future role of gas in energy and power systems to the forefront of policy discussions. Yet the replacement of gas with clean power generation alternatives is an important step in achieving oil and gas production levels that are compatible with a 1.5°C future. 

Our report finds that global gas power generation capacity should decrease by more than 55% by 2035 compared to 2020 levels. Currently forecasted generation from gas power plants already in operation, in construction, or being planned, is expected to deliver more generation capacity than would be consistent with the Paris Agreement throughout the forthcoming decades (Figure ES5). Therefore, the construction of new gas-fired power plants risks leading to a dangerously high number of stranded assets.

In Europe, the shortage of gas supply has so far pushed policy-makers to accelerate the transition to renewable energies, on the one hand, and to pursue alternative gas supplies,
on the other. Based on the selected IPCC pathways, our report finds that existing global import capacity could meet medium- and long-term European demand without Russian
imports, if Europe were to reduce gas consumption in line with the 1.5°C target. The potential supply crunch in 2022 and 2023 could have dire consequences, but new gas supply infrastructure will not come online in time to address it adequately. Not only can Europe meet its energy needs by reducing dependence on Russian gas supply through accelerating renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrification, it must do so to align with 1.5°C pathways.

The European gas crunch has also prompted a global dash for gas, which is incompatible with the timely achievement of an energy transition compatible with the 1.5°C target. As such, the impacts of the energy crisis may also be considerable in developing countries, especially those with exploitable gas reserves. They may face higher risks of stranded assets once the European dash for gas has reached its peak. It is therefore essential that developing countries continue to pursue 1.5°C-compatible transition pathways, and leapfrog from current fossil-based energy paradigms to clean energy sources that can guarantee a more sustainable and secure energy future. It requires dedicated policies to foster capacity building and infrastructure development, and support of donor countries and international financial institutions through adequate streams of climate finance. 

The government is consulting on its Net Zero Strategy – your chance to show it the solution which won’t break the bank or cost the earth!

by

The government is consulting on how it delivers its net zero target under the changed circumstances of the current global crisis. This consultation will be more important than previously envisaged since acceptance of the High Court ruling that the net zero strategy is unlawful means the strategy will have to be rewritten!

We urgently need our supporters to respond to the government consultation stressing the value of a Climate Income policy. The deadline is 27th October. Please read our document, Consultation response sample answers (PDF). You can respond online here.

CCL UK, like the IMF, believes that climate change is a crisis which is happening now and will only get worse if individual nations, and ultimately, the world decides that moving towards net zero should be delayed. The newly published WWF Living Planet Report gives a shocking reminder of what is at stake…

Across the world, and in the UK, nature is on its knees and our leaders are risking catastrophic consequences for people, planet and our economy by failing to act. we are hurtling towards a hotter planet where nature – and with it, our food, our homes and livelihoods – will be unable to survive without urgent action now to save our climate.

CCL UK has set out its solution to achieving amelioration of the cost of living crisis and net zero in our recent report.. We are asking members to respond to the net zero consultation because we know that consultations are a powerful means of getting our message to the government, as evidenced by the 2020 Future of UK Carbon Pricing Consultation pp.38-9….

31 consultation responses from non-participants suggested the adoption of a Carbon Fee and Dividend approach as an alternative policy.
The Carbon Fee and Dividend approach involves introducing an escalating fee on fossil fuels, which is imposed as close to the extraction point of the fuel as possible. 100% of the funds raised after deduction of administration costs are redistributed to the population. Business competitiveness issues are mitigated by imposing import fees on products entering the country and rebates to exporting businesses. Advocates of the approach highlight that a well-designed scheme would have social and environmental benefits, equitably distributing the revenues and stimulating investment in low carbon technologies.
Advocates of the approach highlight that a well-designed scheme would have social and environmental benefits, equitably distributing the revenues and stimulating investment in low carbon technologies……..emissions to be reduced in a cost effective and technology-neutral way, while mobilising the private sector to invest in emissions reduction technologies and measures…….Placing a price on carbon creates tLibraryhe incentive for emissions to be reduced in a cost effective and technology-neutral way, while mobilising the private sector to invest in emissions reduction technologies and measures. While we recognise the merits of a Carbon Fee and Dividend policy, we do not propose to adopt it at this time.

Let’s show the government there is a strategy which won’t break the bank, hinder growth or cost the earth!

Read the government’s call for evidence

Read our guidance here

For more information and guidance please register for the national online meeting on Tuesday at 8pm (see Events on Home page).

 

 

A long term solution to the cost of living crisis which will help save the earth not ‘cost the earth’.

by

The current solutions to the cost of living and energy crises are based on borrowing money from future taxpayers and doubling down on fossil fuels; despite the IEA and IPCC warnings that we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground to stand any chance of staying below a 1.5 degree global temperature rise. Francesco La Camera, director-general of IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) recently said, “If we don’t change dramatically the way we produce and consume energy, 1.5C is close to vanishing,” 

There is, however, a solution which would support households without the need for government borrowing and also contribute to the phasing out of fossil fuels without costing the taxpayer!

The solution is not new, it has been successfully implemented in British Columbia and Switzerland since 2008 and Canada since 2019. It is called Climate Income or Carbon fee and dividend; our government knows about it, understands its merits and considered implementing it in 2021.

Climate Income is based on putting a steadily rising price on fossil fuels as they are put on the market and returning the revenue raised by the price (or fee) directly to households.  If implemented it would offer similar support to households as the current support package, but also giving renewables even more of a financial edge over fossil fuels to develop an economy where we are no longer dependent on fossil fuels and contributing to global warming. Climate Income would continue to generate income to offset the rising price of fossil fuels until they have finally been priced out of the market – without costing the taxpayer.

 Now is the time to take a serious look at what Climate Income could do for us.. 

Carbon Pricing and the Cost of Living Crisis: A Major CCL-UK Report

by

Wouldn’t it be great if there was a policy that provided the finance needed to tackle the energy-bill crisis whilst, at the same time, tackling climate change?

Well there is, and all it requires is a small change to a policy already implemented and already supported across the political spectrum—we should continue to provide government support to households to pay their bills but this should be funded by taxing the products, rather than the profits, of fossil fuel companies.

It may seem counter-intuitive to tackle high energy prices by increasing taxes on fossil fuels but, as a recently released report from the Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL-UK) shows, the numbers stack up. If the revenue collected from carbon-taxes is used to help pay energy bills then the majority of households receive significantly more in assistance than they pay out in increased prices.

Our report looks, in detail, at how much money the carbon-price, advocated by the International Energy Agency as needed to tackle climate change, would raise for the UK Treasury. It’s a whopping £700 billion! We then look at the impact on household income this would have, if the revenue was recycled as support for energy bills, and show that the least well-off households would be £100s better off.

So, a policy that tackles both climate change and fuel poverty at no net-cost to the Treasury—what’s not to like!

Click here to see the full report and report summary.

 

 

Canada becomes the first country to issue climate income cheques directly to citizens

by

When Canada’s climate income policy (Climate Action incentive Payment) was implemented in 2019 it became evident that householders did not equate the tax rebate with compensation for the rising price of fossil fuels. Political opponents could therefore argue that the policy was harming families, although despite this the policy has survived two elections. The government acknowledged that support for the policy would improve if it became more visible and has therefore implemented direct, quarterly payments.

The latest CCI newsletter reports that…..

On Friday, July 15th, 2022 Canadians living in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta—provinces where the federal pollution pricing system applies—will receive their first quarterly Climate Action Incentive payment. Thus, Canada becomes the first country in the world to issue direct payments back to citizens from the pollution fee levied on carbon based fuels . 

Starting in 2019,  oil, coal and natural gas distributors were charged a pollution fee of  $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), rising by $10 per year to $170 per tonne CO2e in 2030. The carbon fee for  this pollution pricing policy is revenue-neutral. Between 2019 and 2021 the revenue was recycled back to the citizens in their income taxes “climate action incentive“.  Of note, 80% of households come out ahead, a finding confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and Clean Prosperity.

This quarterly delivery, which replaces an annual credit from previous years, will ensure that Canadians receive payments on a more regular basis. The first payment will be a “double-up” payment that will return proceeds from the first two quarters of the 2022‒23 year (April–June, and July–September). Quarterly payments will follow in October 2022 and January 2023. Canadians can register for direct deposit to ensure that payment is fast, convenient and secure.

For the 2022‒23 fiscal year, a family of four will receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan, and $1,079 in Alberta. Families in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10 percent.

“A huge step — Canada may lead the world to understand that carbon fee and dividend is essential to solve the climate crisis.”
Jim Hansen
Director Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
Columbia University Earth Institute

 

The case for Loss and Damage funding is fast becoming undeniable…..

by

Another year of dangerous heat waves and related crises across the globe highlights the urgent need to resolve the issue of Loss and Damage financing and implementation. A new study in the journal Climatic Change, according to an AP News press release, states that five of the world’s biggest emitters – the US, China, India, Russia and Brazil – cost the world some $6tn in gross domestic product (GDP) over 25 years (1990-2014). Quantifying the damage already caused helps to build the case for Loss and Damage restitution. 

An excerpt from the recent Citizens’ Climate International newsletter states that….

The climate crisis is rapidly intensifying. The costs of climate impacts are adding up, much faster than reserve financial holdings are prepared to withstand. It is estimated unchecked climate change will cost $178 trillion in losses and opportunity costs over the next five decades.

In June, while the world debated how to respond to loss and damage from human-caused climate change, the United States was struck by six natural disasters in one day. The financial, insurance, and emergency response measures we have now are not adequate for any country to fully overcome the escalating cost and risk of climate emergency……….

The debate around loss and damage often misses the fact that communities, countries, and regions affected by slow-moving or shock climate impacts need support to overcome those impacts. Loss and damage finance should provide that leverage for overcoming loss and damage, so affected countries and communities can rise above the baseline of resilience and build a climate-safe future…….

The Loss and Damage Youth coalition (LDYC) has written an open letter to the COP27 Presidency and is asking for youth (people under 35) to show their support by signing. LYDC points out that…..

 Poor communities in the developing countries are already suffering devastation from  the impacts of the climate crisis. For far too long, efforts to reduce emissions and scale up adaptation have been utterly inadequate exceeding people’s ability to adapt. Therefore, loss and damage is now part of the reality of climate change and must be addressed. This year vulnerable communities worldwide have already experienced a dire impacts of climate change. Tropical storm Ana wreaked havoc in Malawi, causing flooding, destruction, and many fatalities. In total 995,072 people were affected, 46 people lost their lives, and 206 people were injured. Cyclone Batsirai struck Madagascar in February of this year, killing 120 people, destroying over 124,000 homes, and displacing an additional 30,000 people. In April 2022, heavy rainfall hit two provinces in South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape killing 443 people, with over 40,000 reported missing and more than 40,000 people been displaced. The floods also destroyed or damaged 4,000 homes .

Their main demands are that:

  • Loss and Damage finance mobilisation and the assessment process mechanism must be forthcoming at COP27.
  • Loss and Damage should be a permanent agenda item at all UNFCCC negotiations.
  • There should be a Youth Advisory Committee on Loss and Damage which will formulate a clear non-tokenistic approach to youth action in addressing climate change impacts and their participation in the decision making process on the national and international levels.
  • The new Global Stocktake Mechanism which analyses the actions taken to meet Paris Agreement demands should address Loss and Damage.
  • The COP27 Presidency should meet with the LDYC:  On the road to COP 27 which is not only an African COP but also a COP for global solidarity, we request a meeting with the COP 27 Presidency. The meeting will serve to help the coalition explain the gaps and our demands from COP 27 and also how we as youths can support the COP 27 presidency to deliver a successful COP for all. Today climate inaction and apathy of the global process is doing injustice to our planet affecting those who did less contribution exponentially. We can all take the path toward a shared hope today.

If you are able, do consider supporting the LYDC open letter.

You might not have noticed this news on renewable energy amidst all the turmoil…

by

Citizens’ Climate Lobby believes in the art of the possible, we seek a dialogue with whoever holds the reins of government to build political will for a liveable world. Who knows what the next few months may bring, it is possible that we may have a Conservative Prime Minister who will be ideologically opposed to Net Zero. 

We may be faced with a government claiming that renewable energy is too expensive and we need to support fossil fuel expansion. If this happens we should point out the success of the latest government Contracts for Difference (CFD) auction. Carbon Brief reports that the auction secured  “a record 11GW  of new renewable energy capacity that will generate electricity four times more cheaply than current gas prices…..The 10.8GW of capacity in total can be expected to generate around 42TWh of electricity, around 13% of current UK generation and enough to cover the usage of over half or UK homes – or all the additional supply needed to run electric vehicles by the end of the decade.

Yesterday a statement from the Conservative Environment Network, (CEN), which has the support of 143 Conservative MPs, pointed out that…

“People will debate the events of recent months and the manner of his departure, but Boris Johnson leaves office with a strong record on the environment. He and his ministers have recognised not just the necessity of restoring nature and delivering net zero, but also the huge opportunities for boosting UK security and prosperity from doing so. He is to be applauded for the UK’s leadership in seizing the green opportunities of Brexit, raising global ambitions on climate change at COP26, and ramping up clean energy production.

“His successor needs to stay the course and make the environment a key priority for the government, as it clearly is for the public. With a cost of living crisis and a war in Europe that is stoking food and energy insecurity, it is imperative that the next Prime Minister pursues policies that meet these challenges and protect the environment. This will be good for jobs, good for growth, and good for the UK’s place in the world.”

 CEN has also commented on the Energy Security Bill….

“Fossil fuels are not secure, affordable, or sustainable. Thanks to new technology and cheap renewables, we can transition away from them and get our bills under control. This legislation will upgrade our energy system and position the UK as a first mover in new globally significant industries. The pace and ambition of energy market reform must be accelerated in response to the cost of living and energy security crises.

“I’m pleased to see the Bill include measures to improve home insulation rates such as reducing the threshold for energy suppliers to take part in the ECO scheme. Energy efficiency is the crucial but missing ingredient to the government’s energy security strategy. We need the Treasury to put in place new incentives to help people finance home upgrades.”

Let’s continue to ask the Government, of whatever political hue or party, to continue to take the perils of climate change seriously and move towards a just transition to a decarbonised world with Climate Income. 

 

Press release on the G7 Steer us to Safety Campaign

by

Global Climate Advocacy Groups Applaud G7 Climate Club

SUDBURY, ON — The Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), have just concluded their summit in Elmau, Germany. The G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. The summit was conducted at a critical juncture for the global community.

Citizens’ Climate International applauds the G7 declaration on open and inclusive climate club:

The G7 is committed to fighting climate change, but at the same time wants to ensure security of energy supply. The aim is to “accelerate a clean and just transition to climate neutrality while ensuring energy security,” according to a jointly released statement. Partnerships in the development of infrastructure and investments could also contribute to the goals of an “open and inclusive climate club”. 

This G7 declaration was also endorsed by the G7-2022 partner countries Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa.

The work of the G7 is not done in a vacuum.

The latest IPCC Report concluded it is now or never. That same report “looked beyond technologies and demonstrates that while financial flows are a factor of three to six times lower than levels needed by 2030 to limit warming to below 2°C, there is sufficient global capital and liquidity to close investment gaps. However, it relies on clear signaling from governments and the international community, including a stronger alignment of public sector finance and policy.” https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Last year, 450 major financial institutions committed to aligning the $130 trillion they manage to science-based net-zero targets in the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net-Zero. https://www.gfanzero.com/

Governments must use policy instruments to successfully mobilize private sector financing at that scale. At the same time, governments must address the affordability crisis.

“Governments around the world can create an equitable and resilient world if they enact evidence-based and socially-just policies that will redirect financial flows away from fossil fuels and towards a resilient and equitable future,” says Cathy Orlando, a Canadian and director of Programs at Citizens’ Climate International .

Canada’s price on carbon pollution is highly efficient and results in progressive outcomes for most taxpayers. The fact is most Canadians living in the provinces with the federal carbon pollution fee (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) come out ahead. The policy is positioning Canada to be a leader in the emerging climate-resilient economy of this century.

”The world should look at how Canada prices carbon pollution”, says David Michael Terungwa, a Nigerian and Field Development Lead and Africa Regional Coordinator  for Citizens’ Climate International. “It reduces income inequality and greenhouse gas pollution from the burning of fossil fuels at the same time”.

It should be noted that the major civil society groups engaged with the G7 including the B7 (business), C7 (civil society), S7 (science), T7 (think tank), W7 (women) and Y7 (youth) that work within the G7 had carbon pricing or redirecting financial flows in their key climate  demands.  For full details go here: https://citizensclimate.earth/2022/06/22/laser-talk-powerful-carbon-pricing-demands-to-the-g7-and-g20-from-civil-society-groups/

Just prior to the G7, the Sustainable Markets Initiative—a collection of more than 400 CEOs from every sector and chaired by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—put forth a three-pronged path to accelerate the transition to a sustainable future that includes carbon pricing, optimization of the the impact of public funds, and government mandates that offer the private sector clarity and stability.
https://a.storyblok.com/f/109506/x/078a651725/smi-ft-ad-final.pdf

Lastly, almost 1,200 global climate advocates from 80 countries sent Citizens’ Climate International letters to the G7 leaders asking the leaders to:

  1. Rapidly redirect financial flows away from fossil fuels and towards an equitable and resilient future. These policies must align with the Net Zero Scenario from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
  2. Negotiate the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to complement the Paris Agreement and financially support a rapid, equitable and managed phase-out of fossil fuels.
  3. Finance successful adaptation and resilience measures to keep vulnerable communities safe from preventable harm.

The letter in its entirety and the current number of letters can be found here: https://citizensclimate.earth/2022/06/12/g7-leaders-steer-us-to-safety/

“We are in a climate emergency. Civil Society networks, business and climate advocates globally are now collectively pushing for governments to enact policies to redirect financial flows towards a resilient and equitable future,” says Orlando. “History had its eyes on the G7. Their Climate Club will need to be more than just a ‘talking shop’ and deliver concrete actions.”

Citizens’ Climate International (CCI) and the G7: Citizens’ Climate International (CCI) has been engaging within the Civil Society Networks that send demands to the G7 leaders since 2018.  Our primary policy focus is carbon pricing and border carbon adjustments and more generally financial flows. The policies we support must be rooted in human rights and gender justice.

From January 2022 to May 2022, a dozen CCI members from ten countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Nigeria,  Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) worked within and monitored carefully several civil society networks representing over 300 global organizations that sent demands to the G7 in Germany this year.