PINA

The world must abandon fossil fuels as a matter of urgency, rather than entrusting the future climate to untried “techno-fixes” such as sucking carbon out of the air, scientists and campaigners have urged, as governments wrangled over last-minute changes to a landmark scientific report.

Talks on the final draft of the latest comprehensive assessment of climate science, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stretched hours past their deadline on Sunday. Scientists and governments were locked in disagreement on questions such as how much funding was likely to be needed for developing countries to tackle the climate crisis, and what emphasis to give policies such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

Governments have been accused of trying to water down the scientists’ findings, due to be published on Monday. The Guardian understands that India has demanded key changes on issues including finance, along with Saudi Arabia which wants to see affirmation of a continued role for fossil fuels, while other countries including China and Ecuador also held out on some points. Russia has played a more muted role than some feared.

Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate the Tyndall Centre for climate research at the University of Manchester, one of the UK’s leading climate academics, called for the scientists to prevail. “I hope Working Group 3 [the IPCC section about to be published] has the courage to actually call for the elimination of fossil fuels production and use within a Paris [agreement] compliant timeline,” he said.

This is the third part of the IPCC’s latest landmark assessment, and the most contentious because it covers the policies, technologies and finances needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The first part, covering the physical science of climate change, was published last August showing the world had only a narrow chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C; the second, published just over a month ago, showed the catastrophic impacts heating of 1.5C would have, but it was overshadowed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The report itself – hundreds of pages long and drawing on the work of thousands of scientists over the past eight years – is settled, but still in dispute is the crucial “summary for policymakers”, a selection of key messages running to only about 40 pages. While the report is drafted by scientists, the summary – which is the key reference document for governments – is edited with input from every UN member state that wishes to be represented.

The latest warning from the IPCC – the final instalment of its mammoth comprehensive assessment, before a synthesis report in October draws together its key messages in time for governments meeting for the UN Cop27 climate summit in Egypt this November – comes at a crucial time.

Many countries, including the US, the EU and the UK, are reconsidering their reliance on fossil fuels in light of the Ukraine war, which has pushed already high energy prices to record levels. Energy is now seen as a national security issue, and the crisis in the cost of living in many countries is forcing governments to rethink ways to protect their citizens, from high prices and climate breakdown.

Rachel Kyte, the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University in the US, said: “We are at a moment of increasing tension around the world, with every excuse possible for distraction and delay. We now have to put our arms round a new form of energy security, one that embraces everyone – a new kind of politics. We are at a moment of reckoning and the IPCC report just puts an exclamation point at the end of that.”

Some governments are likely to stress the role the IPCC foresees for techniques that remove carbon from the air, such as carbon capture and storage, used to neutralise fossil fuel power stations, and technologies such as “direct air capture” by which carbon is chemically extracted from the atmosphere. The IPCC in its broader report is likely to warn that these techniques are unproven and likely to be prohibitively expensive to use quickly at the scale required, but governments may force more favourable language into the summary.

Nikki Reisch, the director of the energy and climate programme at the Center for International Environmental Law, said governments should be clear: “There is no room for more oil and gas full stop. [Some businesses] want to perpetuate the myth that we can carry on using fossil fuels. But we need a just transition away from fossil fuels, not techno-fixes.”

Anderson said this was a key dilemma. He warned the report could “pull its punches, hiding behind billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide removal … [If that is what emerges], then the academic community will have abdicated its responsibility and opted for realpolitik over real physics. The climate responds only to the second.”

Stephen Cornelius, the head of delegation for WWF, defended the IPCC process against charges that governments could use it to water down scientific warnings. He said that as governments played a role in writing the summaries, they could not shirk responsibility for heeding the warnings they contain. “The IPCC is a useful process,” he said. “It is cumbersome, there is a long time between the outlines and the report, but … the reports have political buy-in, and that’s why they are taken seriously.”.

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN/PACNEWS

The UN top rights body appointed an expert on climate change and human rights for the first time on Friday, a move that is expected to embolden environmental defenders and provide more support for victims of extreme weather.

The new Special Rapporteur position was formally created by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in October at the same time as the body recognised access to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right.

The first to hold the post will be Ian Fry, who holds both Australian and Tuvaluan nationality. He has negotiated on behalf of least developed countries including at the 2015 Paris climate conference where he helped ensure that human rights were part of the final package.

Tuvalu, a tiny, low-lying Pacific nation, has been prominent in drawing global attention to the struggle against rising sea levels. Its foreign minister gave a video address to the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow last year standing knee-deep in seawater. read more

The mandate of the new independent expert is to “study and identify how the adverse effects of climate change, including sudden and slow onset disasters, affect the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and make recommendations on how to address and prevent these adverse effects”.

In his letter stating his reasons for seeking the post, Fry stressed the need for action to help those forcibly displaced by extreme weather, having witnessed this first hand after Cyclone Pam in Tuvalu in 2015.

“I believe the displacement due to climate change is one of the greatest human rights threats confronting the international community,” he wrote.

Fry, who teaches environmental policy part time at an Australian university, was one of 26 candidates for the position, UN documents showed. The appointment is for three years.

The UN Human Rights Council on Friday recognised access to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right, formally adding its weight to the global fight against climate change and its devastating consequences.

The vote passed with overwhelming support, despite criticism in the lead-up from some countries, notably the United States and Britain.

The resolution, first discussed in the 1990s, is not legally binding but has the potential to shape global standards. Lawyers involved in climate litigation say it could help them build arguments in cases involving the environment and human rights.

“This has life-changing potential in a world where the global environmental crisis causes more than nine million premature deaths every year,” said David Boyd, UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, who called the decision a “historic breakthrough”.

The text, proposed by Costa Rica, the Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, was passed with 43 votes in favour and 4 abstentions from Russia, India, China and Japan, prompting a rare burst of applause in the Geneva forum.

Britain, which was among the critics of the proposal in recent intense negotiations, voted in favour in a surprise, last-minute move. Its ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Rita French, said the UK was voting ‘yes’ because it shared supporters’ ambition to tackle climate change but added that states would not be bound to the resolution’s terms.

The United States did not vote since it is not currently a member of the 47-member Council.

Costa Rica’s ambassador, Catalina Devandas Aguilar, said the decision will “send a powerful message to communities around the world struggling with climate hardship that they are not alone”.

Critics had raised various objections, saying the Council was not the appropriate forum and citing legal concerns.

Environmental defenders had said Britain’s earlier critical stance was undermining its pledges ahead of the global climate conference it is hosting in Glasgow next month. read more

John Knox, a former UN special rapporteur, said ahead of the vote that those who had criticised the resolution were “on the wrong side of history”

The World Health Organisation estimates that some 13.7 million deaths a year, or around 24.3% of the global total, are due to environmental risks such as air pollution and chemical exposure.

Another proposal led by the Marshall Islands to create a new special rapporteur on climate change was also approved by the Council on Friday.

SOURCE: REUTERS/PACNEWS