This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Countries committed to a principle of fairness when they signed the ParisAgreement in 2015, acknowledging that those who have profited for decades from oil, gas and coal had a responsibility to deliver funds to the countries least responsible, yet most impacted by climate change.
This year, we yet again witnessed the dramatic consequences of the world’s continued burning of fossilfuels, such as hurricane Debby in Quebec, the wildfires in Jasper, and the flooding in southern Ontario. Before the ParisAgreement was signed in 2015, the world was on track for a catastrophic four degrees of warming.
After 30 years of international negotiations failing to mention the root cause of the climate crisis, the acknowledgement that we must phase out all fossilfuels and massively scale up renewable energy in order to effectively tackle the climate crisis, was both long overdue and extremely significant.
Plans countries have submitted under the ParisAgreement would lead to an increase in overall emissions by 2030 and that trend desperately needs to be reversed. Corporate high emitters When a methane super-emitter is identified, the company or government who owns that site needs to take action. Other teams find similar results.
Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) research shows that top fossilfuel producers’ emissions are responsible for as much as half of global surface temperature increase. The best solution: Replace fossilfuels with renewable energy. A small number of big corporations are responsible for the climate crisis.
Even so, it compares favorably with the national governments in places like the U.S. According to the Energy Information Agency , South Korea’s power sector is heavily reliant on fossilfuels. Actual generation is tilted a bit more toward fossilfuels and nuclear. What is South Korea doing to cut its emissions?
For years, fossilfuel companies have socialized the costs of their pollution while privatizing the benefits. Since local and state governments are on the frontlines of paying for worsening wildfires, they should also be on the leading edge of holding fossilfuel companies accountable.
If policymakers can reduce short-term, high-impact heat-trapping gases such as methane we can limit warming and keep the ParisAgreement goals within reach. But governments must put policy measures into place immediately to be effective. At COP27, 636 registered attendees are lobbyists for the fossilfuel industry.
As I prepare to attend the UN’s 28 th annual Conference of the Parties (COP28 ), I’ve been thinking a lot about the connection between the UN climate talks and litigation, especially in light of the stark reality that parties to the 2015 ParisAgreement are falling short on key milestones leading up to the next month’s meeting.
Our experts will be able to provide insight on the negotiations at COP29 – including on issues related to climate finance, the energy transition and fossilfuel subsidies. Our team will also be tracking the participation in the negotiations and proceedings by the Government of Canada, provincial leaders, and oil and gas lobbyists.
Some events last week sent a strong signal that the tide is turning against fossilfuels. To paraphrase Churchill, this may not be beginning of the end for fossilfuels, but at least it is the end of the beginning of the campaign against them. Each of the events standing alone would have been noteworthy.
Now the reports driven by these resolutions are beginning to roll in, and while they certainly provide some insight into the fossilfuel industry’s investment in political influence, a sleight of hand is preventing investors from seeing the companies’ full strategy. degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The dangerous impacts of a warming, fossil-fuel dependent world span from wildfires capable of destroying entire towns to cancer-causing air pollution that afflicts the next generation. The UNFCC ParisAgreement , for example, proposed that the global community would work together to limit the Earth’s temperature warming by 1.5°C
The key word here is “ intensity :” Fossilfuel companies often focus on emissions intensity, meaning emissions per barrel of oil, rather than absolute emissions, which is a set number measured in metric tons. Heat-trapping emissions must be cut in half by 2030 to reach the Parisagreement goal of keeping global warming to 1.5
Last year, climate negotiators in Glasgow finalized the ParisAgreement rulebook for international cooperation through carbon markets, clearing the way for the expansion of emissions trading and carbon pricing worldwide. The post Governing Emissions Trading in California and China appeared first on Legal Planet. Stay tuned.
In the year since, there have been even more important advances in climate litigation seeking to hold companies and governments accountable for climate harms. Instead of warning the world and transitioning away from fossilfuels, the industry spent the last 50-plus years spreading disinformation and obstructing government action.
During the Hangzhou plenary, governments had the opportunity to review and adjust the draft outlines developed at earlier expert meetings. This debate is not just technicalit is deeply tied to ethics, governance, and the role of the IPCC in assessing emerging technologies.
goal of the ParisAgreement, but I do think that it will be possible for us to keep warming under 2C and avoid the most devastating effects of climate change. While these strategies are daunting and most governments are focused on mitigation and adaptation, I think that there is a lot of hope for innovation at the local level. [L]ocal
Two-thirds of the G20’s public finance for energy went to fossilfuels in 2019–2020. The G20 group of nations provided nearly US$200 billion in support of fossilfuels in 2021, despite the worsening impacts of the climate crisis and their pledge in 2009 to phase out “inefficient” subsidies. By Catherine Early.
During the Hangzhou plenary, governments had the opportunity to review and adjust the draft outlines developed at earlier expert meetings. This debate is not just technicalit is deeply tied to ethics, governance, and the role of the IPCC in assessing emerging technologies.
A leaked recording showed a vital member of the presidency being exposed for wanting to use the summit to strike fossilfuel deals. He declared fossilfuels to be ‘a gift of god’ and used the platform the summit presented him with to attack Western democracies. The climate activist group 350.org
We’ve been hearing a lot lately about geoengineering – the various scientific theories and governance ideas that could eventually lead to technological interventions to help cool the planet. How will governments deal with private startups if they continue to perform unscientific, unregulated experiments? A weather balloon.
Trading in disinformation In its climate lobbying report, ExxonMobil deemed 52 associations “aligned” for acknowledging the risks of climate change, publicly backing the ParisAgreement goal of limiting average global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and taking steps to reduce carbon emissions.
So, what if all parties – government, private sector, environmental groups, the public more broadly -actually made difficult choices and compromises, sometimes even involving important principles, in the face of dire consequences. To be blunt, in a world at great risk from the burning of fossilfuels, this is bordering on insanity.
Spearheaded by the Republic of Vanuatu, they want the court to clarify how existing International Law can strengthen governmental action on climate change, protect public health and the environment, and save the save the ParisAgreement.
Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) asserted that these legal consequences are governed by the general law of State responsibility. Micronesia , Ghana , and Saint Lucia also emphasized that cessation and non-repetition would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cutting fossilfuel subsidies, and phasing out fossilfuels.
Statement from Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate Dubai, UAE – Today at COP28 Canada joined eight other countries in signing a Joint Ministerial Statement on FossilFuel Subsidies , to address inaction on a 14 year old commitment to eliminate fossilfuel subsidies.
There’s a direct line of culpability between fossilfuel corporations and climate change – it’s why so many oil and gas CEOs have topped our list of Climate Villains. But they aren’t the only powerful players who shoulder responsibility for keeping us hooked on fossilfuels, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
COP is far from just a showy conference – it is an important forum that has created agreements and momentum which over the past three decades have measurably reduced the severity of climate change. Before the ParisAgreement was signed in 2015, the world was on track for a catastrophic four degrees of warming. Who attends COP?
And they’re preventing efforts to build a healthy, equitable world beyond fossilfuels. That’s why we’ve included them in our brand-new campaign that names and shames the key players in the fossilfuel industry who are guilty of fueling climate chaos and the tactics they use to greenwash and misinform us all.
The Canadian government brought very little new to this UN conference. Obviously Canada can’t be exclusively blamed for why serious gaps remain in fulfilling the commitments made in Paris, but our lack of action and ambition is a factor. Finally F-words: fossilfuels. Phasing out fossilfuels is not in question.
Canada promised to cut its greenhouse gas emissions after the 2016 ParisAgreement. It was part of the global agreement where 195 countries all agreed to reduce their emissions, and Canada has set this promise into law. The federal government has set targets and policies for most sectors in the economy….except
The joint statement from the recent G7 environment and energy ministers’ conference in Japan suggests there is ambition for action in some areas – on climate-related finance and investments and on eliminating toxic chemicals, for example – but less on eliminating fossilfuel subsidies and very little on eliminating plastic pollution.
Photo credit: Karwai Tang / UK Government via Flickr. For the first time ever in the 27-year history of UN climate talks, at COP26 fossilfuels were mentioned in the final agreement. This shows that we are getting nearer to consigning the fossilfuel industry to history, even though there’s still a long way to go.
In 2019 and again in 2020 , Shell found that CAPP was out of step with Shell’s principles because of lack of support for the ParisAgreement and climate policies such as carbon pricing. Shell “supports” the ParisAgreement on climate change , limiting warming to 1.5 and Canada achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
This will be the first time that the CER will model a net-zero scenario, which is a big deal, since the models showcased in the Energy Futures report are used for decision-making by the governments and private sectors. Canada isn’t the only country that has communicated support for some form of fossilfuel phase out.
By Bernice Lee Following the ParisAgreement, corporate enthusiasm for climate action surged, with net-zero commitments and the energy transition taking a central role in both government and business agendas. It is not a direct replacement for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies.
But we wanted to take a moment to lay out our expectations, both for what COP28 must deliver as well as the Government of Canada. (If Fossilfuels are causing the climate crisis. Over 90 per cent of carbon emissions are from fossilfuels. Since then, momentum for a fossilfuel phaseout has continued growing.
C) of the ParisAgreement has significant implications for how the global financial system works and will be a centrepiece of the coming years. The first priority following the 2015 ParisAgreement was to clean up public financing, so Article 2.1(C) C) of the ParisAgreement. Article 2.1(C)
But the United Nations has just said that the latest commitments of the 192 parties of the 2015 Parisagreement will equate to a 16% rise in global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2010. “What is needed is a proper commitment to genuinely get to net zero and that has to be through government legislation.
The world is moving away from fossilfuels. With renewable energy, like solar and wind, becoming cheaper and easier to scale up, there has never been a better moment for governments to transition away from the fossilfuel industry and its destructive impacts on the environment, the climate and communities.
These are worthwhile questions, but Legg’s answer is a call for more fossilfuels. It also shows how fossilfuel industry boosters are grasping at straws. The biggest obstacle standing in the way of Canada meeting its emissions reduction targets is the fossilfuel industry. This is misguided and dangerous.
Then there is the ongoing controversy in the UK of new fossilfuel projects. As the host nation which should lead by example, the UK has as yet been unwilling to promise that three new controversial fossilfuel projects will not go ahead. degrees C target. degrees C target. Climate maths. Bleak prospects. If only a 1.5
While excluding new fossilfuel expansion from the sustainability label is obvious, including existing ‘natural’ methane gas projects in the taxonomy in any way would be problematic, given that studies show that gas – when accounting for its extraction, cooling, and transport – is more polluting for the climate than coal.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content