energy

The Bangkok talks were focused on setting the agenda for the negotiations for the rest of the year and were setback by divisions between countries over the scope of international climate talks. In Bangkok some rich developed countries insisted on limiting the negotiations to implementing the narrow range of issues agreed at Cancun; in contrast most countries supported continuing under an agreed workplan from 2007 (the Bali Action Plan).[1]

Read our Bonn blog

The Bonn talks are to be based on the broad agenda advocated by most countries in Bangkok, but the clash in the 'paradigm' for the negotiations will underline further disagreements in Bonn. 

These fault-lines include:

1. Setting binding emissions reduction targets through the Kyoto Protocol
2. Insufficient emissions reduction targets currently on the table
3. The Green Climate Fund
   

1. Setting new binding emission reduction targets in 2011?

The Kyoto Protocol represents the current model of international climate law – it requires developed countries to set binding emission reduction targets and to meet them over a 5 year period. The first five-year period ends in 2012 and time is running out to agree on targets for the next ‘commitment period’ (2013-2017/2020) in accordance with the mandated negotiations, which have been running since 2005.

Developing countries, particularly the Africa Group, have made clear that a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol is essential, as it provides a paradigm of legally binding emission reduction targets. Some developed countries, including Russia and Japan, have indicated they will walk away from their international legal obligations to agree commitments for the period after 2012. The United States is similarly opposed to binding emissions reduction targets. Instead of negotiating science-based targets reflecting their fair share of the global effort, they are now proposing a “pledge-based” system in which each country does whatever it determines domestically.

Bonn represents a pivotal moment for the future of the Kyoto Protocol. The Bonn climate talks need to pave the way for agreement in Durban on the next phase of legally binding emission reduction targets. Durban is the last chance to agree, as the first phase of commitments ends in 2012. If there is no agreement in Durban, the world may be faced with climate anarchy, without an international regime in place.

2. Will those new pledges be enough?

The latest science shows that negotiators at Bonn will be out of touch with what the latest science clearly requires if the world is to avert dangerous climate change. The current pledges risk warming of 2.5 to 5 degrees according to the United Nations Environment Programme. The problems with developed countries’ proposed targets are manifold: they are too low to meet what the science requires but they are also accompanied by ‘creative accounting’ proposals which result in emissions reductions only on paper. Furthermore the extensive use of offsets will see rich countries shift the burden for reducing emissions to developing countries – while doing almost nothing at home.

Analysis revealed in Bangkok showed that when emission reductions were converted into gross amounts – rather than percentages – it was clear that developing countries’ pledges for emission reductions were even higher than those from developed countries (3.6 Gigatonnes to occur in developing countries with only 1.9 Gigatonnes to occur in developed countries).[2] Together, these pledges fell well short of the 14+ Gigatonnes the UN says is necessary to be on path to remain below 2 or 1.5 degrees C.

In addition, the emissions reduction targets proposed by developed countries are ridden with loopholes. The rules currently being considered do not take into account emissions from shipping and aviation, overestimate emissions reductions by forests and land use in developed countries and allow the carry-over of unused pollution permits and offset credits . This means that the total emission of developed countries could actually increase even if their ‘official’ targets say they are making reductions[3].

The debate over these rules, how they shift the burden of reducing emissions to developing countries and whether they are in line with the science will be of central importance in Bonn – particularly as the agenda sets particular time for addressing this issue.[4]

3. Creating a ‘Green Climate Fund’

In Cancun one of the few areas of agreement was the establishment of a ‘Green Climate Fund’ (GCF) to oversee the collection and disbursement of ‘climate finance.’ Currently the details of the GCF are being negotiated by a ‘Transitional Committee’ (TC) which has already met in Mexico in April and again in Bonn from May 30.

Flashpoint issues in the negotiations of the GCF have already included the role of the World Bank as its trustee, given concerns regarding its potential conflicts of interest due to its role in financing fossil-fuel based projects, and its practice of mixing roles as a banker, financial advisor and project implementer (known as the “Arthur Anderson syndrome” following the financial crisis). This conflict may be compounded by proposals relating to secondments and staffing of the new fund, which draw heavily on the World Bank as a source.

Similarly, many observers are concerned that the process of the GCF is off-track. It is currently heavily focused on technicalities and structure – without having agreed to what the priorities of the fund should be or the actual scale of public funding. In Cancun, countries agreed to a “goal” to “mobilize” $100 billion by 2020 from “a wide variety of sources”. However, developed countries are yet to commit to any specific level of public funding.

A further critical question here is what a “balanced” allocation of finance between adaptation and mitigation really means.[5] It is to be expected at Bonn that developing countries, who are the most vulnerable to climate impacts, will push the GCF to identify the needs and priorities of recipients before designing structures to best meet those needs.

Finally there is concern that the GCF is too focused on ‘private finance’ options (through loan guarantees, publicly-provided insurance, or other risk sharing instruments) and thus risks putting too much power into the hands of profit-driven interests. Market failures and distortions by private interests are a significant structural cause of the climate crisis and many countries fear a continued focus on the ‘private market’ could have the effect of financing projects that are ineffective at confronting climate change but are very effective at transferring public monies into private coffers. These countries and observers will be pushing for the GCF to be primarily funded through public sources (including innovative mechanisms such as Special Drawing Rights and the ‘Robin Hood Tax’).

1] See recent affirmation of the importance of the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol at the India-Africa forum, 25 May 2011, (para 7), http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=72319

[2] Stockholm Environment Institute, “The Implications of International Greenhouse Gas Offsets on Global Climate Mitigation” (March 2011), www.sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-1106.pdf

[3] Stockholm Environment Institute, “Assessing the current level of pledges & scale of emission reductions by Annex I Parties in aggregate, AWG-KP In Session Workshop, Bonn, 2. August 2010; and, Kartha, S. “How Accounting Tricks, Loopholes, and Strategic Carbon Banking Could Negate Developed Countries’ Copenhagen Pledges”, Tellus Institute Brown Bag Lunch Series, 10 November 2010.

[4] On Thursday 9 June 2011 according to preliminary schedule.

[5] This is a reference to the objective of the fund from the Cancun outcome document – see Annex III of 1/CP.16, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2.

The objective of the HydroAysén project is the construction and operation of five hydroelectric power plants; two of them on the Baker river and three of them on the Pascua river. FoE Chile believe that the recent approval of the project is the result of a series of irregularities and negligence during the environmental impact study.

"The process was inadequate from the beginning" Says Bernardo Zentilli, President of FoE Chile. "It is outrageous that the dams were submitted to an environmental study without the inclusion of the necessary overhead lines for energy transmission."

"Besides this, 10,000 citizens' objections were arbitrarily excluded from the participatory process provided by law, thanks to the early closing of the process due to pressure from the Minister of the Interior" concludes Bernardo.

The group are taking part in demonstrations against the project that have been attended by tens of thousands of people. They are calling on people outside the country to register their disapproval of the project at Chilean embassies.

According to FoE Chile, the environmental approval for the project was given without the company's response to the many observations made by the body in charge of the evaluation. Observations such as illegal flooding in the San Rafael Lagoon national park; or the dams capacity to support the simultaneous emptying of the glacier lakes that feed the rivers were ignored.

The flooding of the land endangers the Huemul, also know as the South Andean deer, an endangered species and a national symbol, of which only 2,500 remain.

Prior to the project's approval, the authorities had mocked the independence that the Commission for Environmental Impact Study should have to make a decision based on technical information. They even publicly expressed their agreement with carrying out the HydroAysén project, regardless of whether it complied with the environmental legislation in force.

The Minister of Environment has underestimated HydroAysén's environmental impact saying that it would 'barely' flood 0.05% of the Aysén Region. While President Piñera claims "we are condemning the country to a blackout if projects like this one are not built."

Nothing is being said about the 24,000 additional hectares that will be impacted by the 2,200 km of overhead power lines associated with the project.

As it was pointed out to the Minister of Environment, "Today it is not possible to make a difference between the government's discourse and the discourse of the company behind the project."

An unsustainable development

Given the greenhouse gas emissions produced during the construction of the dams and the deforestation incurred to make way for the overhead lines, HydroAysén cannot be considered a clean energy project. This, in addition to the fragmentation of water and land habitats, the irregularities in the approval of the project and the exclusion of citizens from the project, makes HydroAysén's the opposite of 'sustainable development'.

FoE Chile are urging the authorities to stop legitimising this project and instead promote the massive incorporation of renewable energies to the Chilean energy matrix, which have the potential of generating more electricity than HydroAysén.

Patagonia is a beautiful place with potential for social, cultural and tourist development unique in the planet. It hosts a large part of Chile's water reserves and should not be destroyed for the benefit of private interests. 

Find out more about Friends of the Earth Chile's opposition to the project on their website (in spanish)

The changes to the planning law will give local councils a greater role in deciding the location of wind farms, regardless of the size of the project.

"We are happy to support the primary decision making powers going back to councils on the proviso that they can opt out and refer an application to the Minister, and that there are time limits decisions." said Cam Walker, Campaigns Co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth Australia. 

"Without a set time line, a council could chose to sit on a proposal indefinitely and delay to the point the project is no longer viable," he said.

"We remain deeply concerned that the overall intent of the Coalition’s pre-election wind farm policy is to create broadly defined ‘no go’ zones, which would exclude wind farms from areas with some of Victoria’s best wind resources.

"At a time when both the effects of climate change and the economic benefits of the renewable energy industry are well known, the government’s wind policy is very much the wrong direction for Victoria to take," said renewable energy campaigner Ellen Roberts.

"Just this week Victorians have learnt of plans for a dramatic increase in coal exploration in our state.

"There is clearly a double standard at play here. While the government seems intent on placing excessive restrictions on wind energy, local communities are not offered the same protections when it comes to coal exploration and production.

"The only conclusion to be drawn from the amendments is that the Coalition government intends to make it easier to open a coal mine than start a wind farm in the state of Victoria," concluded Ms Roberts.

View the letter of protest signed by over 40 groups on the issue

Photo credit: Friends of the Earth Australia

The 30-second television advertisements will run in South Carolina, where the state Supreme Court is set to hear a Friends of the Earth appeal related to two proposed nuclear reactors in the state; and in Georgia, where the first of the Obama Administration’s loan guarantees are slated to go to the construction of two nuclear reactors.

Find out more on the Friends of the Earth US website

The climate crises into which the world has been plunged is a crisis that will continue to deepen unless decisive steps are taken to halt the unsustainable consumption lifestyle dependent on increasing use of fossil fuels. Today the world has a clear path that needs to be taken to directly tackle the climate crisis and this is a common sense approach of simply  keeping fossil fuels in the soil. We drilled our way into this crisis and further drilling will not get us out of it.

The climate crises finds its root causes in the energy crises, over-consumption of natural reources by the global North and elites worlwide, wasteful and harmful production patterns and a fundamentally undemocratic and anti-social way of managing natural resources, which systematically prevented local communities from their sovereignity on their own resources and development choices.

The story of the extractive industry has been the story of crude exploitation that defies boundaries of decency. Pristine environments, nature reserves, indigenous territories and biodiversity hotspots have not been respected by oil and mining corporations which have benefited of massive profits without giving reparation and enjoying immunity.

The resistance of local communities against large-scale mining and fossil fuel development is part of their historical struggle against the neo-liberal economic framework which continues to bring sufferings and injustice to the people. In many instances, the aggressive entry of large-scale mining and energy have violated the human rights and other rights of local communities, particularly the indigenous peoples and nature's rights.  These human rights violations are reflected in the forced physical and cultural displacements of communities, the misinterpretation or misuse of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), the division of social relationships, and the loss of livelihoods and access to natural resources.

No global climate deal fixing general emission reduction targets in the long-term will be enough to tackle the climate emergency and responsibilities of those who generated it. Current climate talks do not refer to the need to implement different energy, transport, housing, agriculture policies and new approaches in other sectors of society. Nor do they foster the need to consume less, in particular in Northern countries. The global climate narrative is taking us away from the main goal that any action should have: to extract and consume less and less fossil fuels.

The Northern countries must adopt drastic changes in their consumption patterns and lifestyles, that will reduce the demands for energy and minerals. In turn this will eliminate the pressures from Southern countries to allocate lands for large-scale mining and fossil fuel development, thus reducing current harsh conflicts over land use.
At the same time a radical transition out of the oil economy would stop plans for new large scale infrastructure, such as pipelines, refineries and transport facilities, connnected to the fossil fuel industry.

The G8 approach to the climate crises remains limited and confined in the territory of market based mechanisms and the primacy of the private sector. This approach has already proved to be a failure and to favour only corporations to accumulate more profits, does not pay for reparation for damages to the environment and communities generated so far and avoid transforming their business.

In a responsible and mature manner international social movements are proposing instead a comprehensive bottom-up strategy to tackle climate change, centred on individual, communities and public institutions' responsibilities and aimed at limiting corporations' capacity to avoid their legal and ethical responsibilities.

There are thousands of alternative practices at community and local administration's level and already several policy proposals at local, national and international level have been tabled as part of this bottom-up strategy. Without public policies in the public interest transforming
any sector of society no climate strategy will be effective and no just transition towards a sustainable and fair society will happen.

PHASING OUT THE OIL ECONOMY

Oil driven economics have led the world into  unprecedented levels of diverse crises, wars and other conflicts, corrruption as well as other catastrophes that have been displaced from sources to their victims, who are found mostly in the South. Oil has been presented as a cheap energy source, but the truth is that the real cost of oil has been externalised and the burden has been placed on impoverished local communities as well as on the environment. Without realising it, the world has become addicted to crude oil and its derivatives in a way that virtually stuffs petroleum into our bodies. This addiction must be broken.

Carbon emissions should be drastically reduced and a transition to a  different model of production and consumption is urgently needed in order to break the dependency of our economy on fossil fuels extraction. Oil extraction hardly ever brings benefits to the local communities and to the poor. To the contrary, it is a threat to food security and human rights of indigenous and local people.

The current market value of the oil is far less than the massive climate and ecological debt the product has accumulated. We declare that the oil economy is a bankrupt system that needs to be urgently jettisoned. Oil should be kept in the soil as the safest, most democratic and cheaper “carbon capture and storage”. Ecuadorian proposal not to extract oil in the Yasuni park and the Nigeria proposal to stop new oil exploration should be supported.

Keeping oil in the ground is a necessary condition to stop deforestation and protect natural forests, where most of new oil reserves are located.

STOPPING THE NEW OIL FRONTIER

Gluttony of energy makes the companies move onto new sources, such as tar sands and bitumen. These new frontiers of oil extraction are economically, environmentally and socially unsustainable and irresponsible. By using huge water, energy and land they cause irreversible damage to the environment and the climate, which is unprecedented in history. This new  extraction causes more impacts than oil and it is set to raise new levels of conflicts and nature devastation. Even with the addition of these dirtier sources of oil, the unsatiable energy appetite will still not be satisfied.

In order to achieve the needed shift in our economy there should not be new oil exploration, both in the South and in the North.  Governments should stop putting the private interest of oil companies before the public interest and the fundamental rights of communities in the South and in the North.

Today as access to new fields become more difficult, oil corporations are moving further into deep waters. Moving to deep waters may limit direct conflict with local communities but they pose great dangers of further polluting our global marine heritage. Exploitation in deep waters is also known to release higher levels of greenhouse gases thus further jeopardising the world climate. We demand that further oil explorations should be halted forthwith for the sake of the climate and for the sake of our collective patrimony.

STOP UNDER-MINING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

It is necessary to clearly distinguish between traditional, indigenous, artisanal small-scale mining and large-scale mining. We have observed and documented that destructive large-scale mining is incompatible to many of the cultural systems of indigenous peoples and local communities.

In almost all large-scale mining operations and projects, there is lack of proper and genuine consultations with the communities who are going to be affected.  In cases where public consultations are allegedly conducted, these are often superficial, not culturally-sensitive, biased and are in some cases, misleading or coercive.  There have been too many documented cases of mining companies resorting to bribery of communities and employing “divide-and-rule” tactics.

There is a need for a serious assessment of what are the needs of society that justify the extraction of large volumes and quantities of minerals.  In the case of gold, less than 5% is actually used for industrial purposes, about 65% is used for jewelry and ornaments, and about 30% are retained as gold reserves by national banks. An alternative framework on large-scale mining should be  based on the rational need of the country for these minerals, the direct link of using these minerals for national industrialization, and ensuring the least impact of these mining operations on the rights of the communities and people and to the environment. Food security and sovereignty should always be prioritized as well as ecological balance, equity and social justice. There shall be no compromise on human rights, dignities and collectivities. In the context, the option of keeping the minerals in the ground becomes a possibility.

There is a need to expose the myth of “Responsible Mining”.  This concept was a back-up framework of the International Council on Mines and Minerals (ICMM), after their original concept of “Sustainable Mining” was successfully debunked by many civil society organizations and movements.  Responsible mining is a weak concept because it relies on voluntary compliance of mining companies, it highly depends on the ability of governments to enforce legal policies, it fails to address issues of corporate and state corruption, and merely gives token recognition to safeguards such as EIAs, FPICs, etc.)

Upholding the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and prioritizing community-based and community-initiated development and management of resources should be the priority of social movements.  While we continue to work in solidarity with countries in the North, community organizing and strengthening should always be given due importance. Capacities of indigenous peoples and local communities should be developed and strengthened to make them more capable of resisting development aggression. The same capacities will also enable them to identify, develop and implement appropriate and sustainable alternatives

RECLAIMING PUBLIC POLICIES FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Time is running out and it is no more time for inactions or for embarking on the same journeys that led the world into the current crises. The climate debate must be reframed. Real actions such as moving away from over consumption is one path to take. It needs to be recognised that market frameworks have failed miserably on the financial and economic front and cannot help in tackling  climate change. Carbon trading is not the solution, but risks to exhacerbate the problem.

Governments should stop once and for all to promote corporate interests and promote public policies aimed at supporting a different economic model centred on a sustainable use of natural recources, to reduce consumption, to consume mainly local productions, to protect the environment and human rights, including the rights of directly affected communities to choose how to manage the resources of their own territories.

Resources needed for financing such a change should be generated through fair, transparent and progressive taxation. At international level resources should not be allocated to international financial institutions which are still heavily supporting irresponsible mining activities and fossil fuel development worldwide.

The lifestyle change must also lead us to use sustainable local materials in tune with climate and weather realities in any productive sector of society, including building houses. This requires the simple acts of waste reduction, reusing and recycling. Technologies and new practices are not missing at all, the issue is democracy in the access to them and the need for social and just policies which guarantee access to all in the appropriate manner and in a democratic and controlled way, putting at the centre the communities and their right to decide which development to follow in the respect of nature and human rights.

An urgent transition to a post carbon economy is needed. Leaving new oil in the soil, coal in the hole and tar sand in the land is the right path to take now. It is time for the payment of ecological debt that the North owe to the South, that the rich owe to the poor!

The world needs to move to renewable, clean, and decentralized energy sources and meeting energy needs should not subvert food sovereignty. The world must move away from the fossil fuel intensive forms of industrial agriculture and rather support small holder farmers and agro-ecological approaches which have been shown to be more suitable and more productive than genetically engineered crops and others that depend on artificial chemical inputs.
 
The thinking that agrofuels are renewable energy sources and can replace fossil fuels is faulty and has already contributed to the food crisis, significant human rights violations and has triggerred massive land grabs estimated at 30 million hectares of land in the global South in attempts to meet energy and food needs of rich regions. This is a new form of colonialism that the world cannot afford. Therefore the struggle for food sovereignity should go hand in hand with the one of communities for their energy sovereignity

We have to resist corporate globalization. Building movements toward this end is very crucial as we pursue a common agenda for sustainable futures based on social justice, economic justice and ecological justice. There is a need to build or strengthen alliances among communities and support groups that are working on the issue of large-scale mining and fossil fuel extraction. 

Coordination of actions at the global level is needed, as large-scale mining companies and oil and energy majors are some of the biggest and most sophisticated corporate structures, and have close links with international and multilateral financing institutions.  These venues and mechanisms of generating international solidarity are important links for local communities to elevate their struggles for a better and more just world which will respect nature and its rights.

Finally, we state that the G8 cannot decide for the world. The people must!

Towards Solutions 1: People's Power (11 min)

Inspiring practices of and concrete proposals for sustainable energy initiatives. It is not all about technology!

Towards Solutions 2: Energy Sovereignty (8 min)

This short documentary presents the concept of energy sovereignty with examples from around the world.

Click here to watch a short film on agrofuels

The construction of big hydroelectric dams in Patagonia would not only endanger one of the world's biggest freshwater reserves, the Northern and Southern Patagonian ice fields, but would also represent a disaster for the country's energy policy.

Chile’s relatively short rivers and small river basins are very fragile ecosystems that are of great cultural and environmental value, and yet the country has exceptionally rich resources for renewable energy and the potential for energy efficiency.

Drawing on this potential would make the construction of hydroelectric dams unnecessary and ensure this precious area of Chile is preserved.

take action

To support the campaign, just take a photo of yourself with the phrase 'Patagonia SIN Represas' (Patagonia WITHOUT Dams). You can write the phrase on your face, hold a sign or get a tattoo - anything you like!

Then send the photo to turostroxpatagonia@gmail.com  so it can be added to the growing collage of faces.

• See the photographs submitted so far and read more about 'Patagonia without Dams' (in Spanish)
• Find out more about the campaign from Friends of the Earth Chile (in Spanish)

By occupying Hazelwood Power Station near Melbourne, the activists sent a clear message to state and federal governments: 'Switch off Coal and Switch on Renewables'.

Hazelwood is the most polluting power station in the industrialised world, emitting an astonishing 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. The forty-year-old power station is responsible for over 5% of Australia’s total carbon emissions and, by shutting down Hazelwood, the Australian government would instantly meet their 5% emission reduction target.

"Governments are happy to provide token support for climate change by switching off their lights for an hour, once a year, but if they are serious on climate change it's clear Hazelwood needs to be decommissioned this year," said FoE Australia climate campaigner, Louise Morris.

"This Earth Hour we need to acknowledge it is time to do so much more than just switch off our lights for an hour. We need to switch off our reliance on dirty coal and switch onto job rich renewable energy sources."

Hundreds of millions of people 'voted earth' on 28th March by switching off their lights for one hour. The event took place across 25 time zones in over 4,000 cities and towns in 88 countries and represented  the world’s largest demonstration of public concern about climate change.

• Watch a video of the protest on YouTube
  

Read our final speech to the delegates and direct reports from Poznań on our blog

news: what did friends of the earth say

• Rich nations to blame for climate inaction and rejection of rights [Dec 12]
  
• Young people meet EU ministers to demand they 'wrap up' climate change [Dec 11]
• Climate change talks standstill: a human rights threat [Dec 10]
• World Bank unfit to manage climate funds [Dec 8]
  

The Climate negotiations in brief

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992 at the Rio Summit and provides a principles of equity for a multilateral agreement on addressing climate change including the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. This reflects the rich, industrialised nations’ overwhelming contribution to historical emissions and therefore their responsibility in acting first to bring down their national emissions.

After a number of years of intense negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11th December 1997 and it the Protocol attempts to implement the principles of the Convention agreement. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and governments are currently negotiating the second commitment period of the Protocol as well as addressing the 'implementation gap' of other Convention commitments for finance, technology transfer and adaptation.

These talks are scheduled to be completed in December 2009.

Kyoto comes into force

The Kyoto Protocol came into force on 16 February 2005 after the Russian Parliament ratified the treaty in 2004. Kyoto commits industrialized countries who have ratified it to individual, legally binding targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to and average of 5% from 1990 levels in by 2012.

Climate negotiations continue in Poznań

Each year the UNFCCC holds negotiating sessions known as the "COP" (conference of parties). The most recent one was COP14, that took place in Poznań, Poland in December 2008. Delegates continued their work on the "Bali Action Plan" which was agreed at COP 13. The purpose of the Bali Action Plan is to commence implementation on Convention obligations that have not been met thus far, and also design the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to start after 2012. 

Read the reports from the conference on the Friends of the Earth International blog

Friends of the Earth International believes that for the outcomes of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol under the current negotiations to be deemed as legitimate, any agreement reached must be socially, politically, economically and ecologically just and compliant with human rights. Only with a radical global change which is based on climate justice we will be able to prevent the worst consequences of climate change which would hit the poorest people hardest in a sustainable way.

A post-2012 agreement must commit developed countries (Annex I) to make immediate steep emission reductions, support for the respect of land rights and the conservation of the world’s last remaining forests. In addition Annex I countries must make large-scale financial transfers for developing country appropriate adaptation and mitigation with arrangements for appropriate and fair multilateral mechanisms to distribute funds.

Such an agreement should also ensure that the human rights impacts of climate change are taken into account and that the public and civil society have rights of information; public participation and access to justice to ensure that its provisions are developed and applied in an open, fair, transparent and just way.

On the closing day of the COP14 negotiations Friends of the Earth International were invited to give their verdict on the conference. Read it here

reports

REDD myths: A comprehensive critique of a new scheme intended to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries.

Read the press release
Download the executive summary [PDF]

Download the full report  [PDF]

blog

Read updates from the conference on the Friends of the Earth International blog

audio

Listen to Interviews and news from Real World Radio

news

• Rich nations to blame for climate inaction and rejection of rights [Dec 12]
  
• Young people meet EU ministers to demand they 'wrap up' climate change [Dec 11]
• Climate change talks standstill: a human rights threat [Dec 10]
• World Bank unfit to manage climate funds [Dec 8]
• Climate talks pressured by global day of action [Dec 5]
• UN climate talks: clash on climate goal [Dec 4]
• Giant loophole in forest plans [Dec 2]
• Forest carbon trading exposed (REDD) [Nov 27]
• Read our climate position paper for the talks [pdf]

further reading

• Read Friends of the Earth International's analysis of COP13 in Bali (2007) 
• Find out what happened at the intersessional negotiations in Accra, Ghana (2008)
  
• The World Bank and climate change

Friends of the Earth International came to Poznan hoping for progress. We had hoped industrialized countries would commit to steep emission reductions - without offset loopholes - and would announce their willingness to support developing country mitigation and adaptation actions.

However, we remain thoroughly disappointed with the outcomes of the talks thus far.

The distinct lack of achievement here in Poznan falls squarely on the shoulders of the rich industrialized Annex I countries who after 16 years, and despite the rhetoric we have heard about urgency, are still failing to take the climate crisis seriously and realize their obligations under the Convention.

Most Annex 1 countries have spent the majority of this precious negotiating time crafting get-out-clauses and offsetting schemes at the expense of genuine reductions.

These delaying tactics do not set an encouraging tone for the intense year of negotiations to come.  Here in Poznan, we have seen, yet again, the same obstructionist, business-as-usual approach of developed countries. 

Looking forward, we must not ignore the science and the reality of what needs to be done.

For any reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, Annex-1 countries must by February 2009 commit to at least 40% emission reductions by 2020.  But even this level of reduction may not be enough for many vulnerable nations, so why are we discussing anything less?

To achieve necessary emissions reductions globally, finance and clean technology must be urgently delivered to allow developing countries to make a just-transition towards low-carbon development.

Further, negotiations under REDD:

• are failing to ensure the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities are genuinely protected,
• are failing to distinguish monoculture tree plantations from natural forests,
• are failing to recognize the biodiversity benefit of forests,
• and are risking the privatisation of forests through market-based schemes.

We are not approaching a cliff; we are hanging dangerously over the edge.  We must see a radical shift in the focus of this process.

Anything less with be a failure for all people and the planet.

Workshop on campesino forest use, Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica.

One of the main topics at the United Nations climate talks in Accra from 21– 27 August 2008 was Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD).

What was at stake? The proposed inclusion of forests in carbon markets would enable developed countries to avoid real carbon emissions reductions at home. Furthermore, any proposal that increases the financial value of forests may trigger a vast increase in land rights abuse. This would be the result of a rapid expansion of state or corporate control over forests without regard to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent communities.

In Accra, Friends of the Earth International presented its positions and proposals in various official workshops, side events and discussions with country delegates.

learn more

Listen to Real World Radio: UN climate talks end amid scrutiny

Download our new briefing as PDF: Forests are More than Carbon

Read regular updates from Kate Horner of FoE US here

Our latest press releases

A selection of FoEI in the news

Read climate talks updates from Third World Network

Watch videos from the conference at the United Nations web site

...and visit our climate finance campaign pages!

The FoEI team in the Accra Conference Center

Our Big Ask is that EU member states make legally binding commitments to cut emissions year-on-year. These cuts should be equal to at least a 30% reduction of EU-wide domestic emissions by 2020 and 90% by 2050. The Big Ask brings together Friends of the Earth groups from 17 European countries:

- Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, EWNI (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

- The Big Ask will engage hundreds of thousands of people across Europe. People will be empowered to take action against climate change by making this demand of their politicians – at the levels of both national government and the European Union.

- People will take action by visiting their local MPs, signing postcards and petitions and staging local actions. Friends of the Earth groups will organise concerts, exhibitions, and other events, and engage national celebrities to inform people about and engage people in the campaign.

Find out more at thebigask.eu

.

outcomes from Bali

Bali delivered two main decisions which are the timetable for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I, and the Bali Action Plan which is a collection of many different aspects of UNFCCC obligations of mitigation, technology, finance and adaptation. Both are really short on content, and negotiating timetables for the next two years. This is expected to deliver a final decision on Copenhagen in 2009 which will become the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bali Action Plan was the decision taken after a not-seen-before backlash against the USA in which the USA was forced to reverse their position and accept that they had obligations to reduce emissions and to take special consideration of the least developed countries and small island developing states who have comparative low emissions and are extremely vulnerable to climate change. This was widely reported as the 'Bali outcome' and by itself is a really weak decision because it has emissions’ reduction ranges of between 10-40% in a footnote.

The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I - which does actually have emissions reduction ranges of 25-40% by 2020 for industrialised countries, a global peak and decline of emissions by 2015 and keeping temperature below 2 degrees. This is a Kyoto Protocol decision so doesn't apply to the USA - but theoretically provides an 'in' for the USA once there is a change of administration and predicted change of policy on Kyoto.

In Bali there was an unprecedented civil society presence that highlighted the impacts of climate change and proposed solutions. Friends of the Earth believes that a global climate justice movement is necessary to ensure that the responses to climate change are socially and environmentally justice, and that demand a high level of ambition, commitment and action from political leaders.

Alliance-building work in Bali culminated in the establishment of a network called Climate Justice Now! - made up of organisations such as Third World Network, Via Campesina and World Rainforest Movement and Indigenous Peoples organisations. 

Friends of the Earth campaigners from around the world took photos of the event.

And all the latest press releases here

Read more about the Kyoto protocol here
Find out what activities Friends of the Earth International is organising.

Get all the latest coverage and podcasts from Real World Radio

Canada is second only to Austria, worldwide, in the staggering size of its failure to meet its Kyoto target, with its greenhouse gas emissions more than 34% above its 6% reduction target. Last month, the Canadian government set greenhouse reduction targets of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, which would leave Canada about 39% above the Kyoto target for 2008-2012.

In October 2006, an international legal opinion was presented to the Canadian government indicating that Canada had failed to show “demonstrable progress” in achieving its Kyoto target, as required by 2005. This failure, along with others, activated a legal duty on the Environment Minister under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to act to prevent air pollution that violates an international agreement binding on Canada . The lawsuit is an application for judicial review, seeking enforcement of this duty.

“Because climate change is the most urgent crisis ever facing the planet, Friends of the Earth is resorting to the courts to require the federal government to respect its Kyoto promises," said Beatrice Olivastri, Chief Executive Officer of Friends of the Earth Canada, "We must see an end to important programmes being dismantled, terminated and slashed - all part of the pattern of Kyoto denial by the federal government.”

Sierra Legal lawyer Robert Wright  thinks that the Canadian government is letting its voters down.
“Canadians expect the Government of Canada to live up to its domestic and international commitments to combat global warming, and our environmental laws require it to do so," he said. "Our government shouldn't have to be asked to put on a credible and lawful climate change cap.”

The initiative is supported by  the Climate Justice Programme. “ Canada has become the first country to be sued for breaching the Kyoto Protocol. This is possible because Canada is so far off her Kyoto target that her own legal rules designed to prevent pollution in violation of international law kick in, " said Peter Roderick, co-Director of the Climate Justice Poregramme.  "Canada ’s Kyoto performance has been so abysmal that enforcement of her own legal rules is necessary to help stop her traditional reputation as a good international citizen from slipping further.”

Download the history of the case  http://www.foecanada.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=113  the Application www.sierralegal.org


Friends of the Earth Canada is a voice for the environment, working nationally and internationally to inspire the renewal of communities and the earth through research, education and advocacy. It is the Canadian member of the 69 country strong Friends of the Earth International (www.foecanada.org).


 Sierra Legal  is Canada ’s largest non-profit environmental law organization, dedicated to enforcing and strengthening the laws that safeguard our environment, wildlife and public health (www.www.sierralegal.org)./

The Climate Justice Programme is an international collaboration of lawyers and campaigners encouraging enforcement of the law to combat climate change, hosted by Friends of the Earth International (www.climatelaw.org). 

Nuclear power is becoming more popular as governments seek to break their oil addiction. However, it is not a clean alternative. Dangerous and long lasting waste products have to be dumped somewhere, threatening communities for hundreds of years to come.

Residents of Buan county in Korea are facing just such a threat, a huge dump for nuclear waste. On February 14th they held a referendum on whether or not to accept the dump. 50,000 voters out of a total population of about 70,000 participated in the vote. 91% voted against the dump.

Resistance within Buan to the dump has been enormous. Candlelight vigils have been held for more than 200 days. Elementary, middle and high school students went on strike for 41 days, blocking roads. In addition, there were several demonstrations in which more than 20,000 residents participated.

Ultimately, the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy resigned after making apologies to the Buan residents for damages, and he recognized the referendum as an important process to decide upon a nuclear dump site.

Although the Korean government says that it will not accept the result, it will be very hard to ignore the will of the residents. The Buan referendum 2004 made a new page not only in the history of the Korean movement against nuclear energy, but also in the history of Korean democracy.

Friends of the Earth Korea website

grassroots support for climate-friendly energy as EU leaders seal energy future

9 March 2007

As pivotal debate about Europe's future energy policy took place at the EU Spring Council in Brussels, Friends of the Earth activists assembled to construct a 12 metre high bright blue and yellow flag right outside the meeting, demanding that governments stop climate change, cut energy waste and choose renewables. The flag followed the design of the famous EU flag, but contained symbols for sustainable energy choices in the golden stars and was formed by hundreds of people from across Europe, dressed in blue on a giant frame.

Participants in the action came from fifteen European countries. A sea of banners at the base of the giant flag displayed the slogan "Stop Climate Change. Cut Energy Waste. Choose Renewables," in multiple languages.

According to Jan Kowalzig, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, people across Europe are deeply concerned about climate change. "They are fed up with governments protecting the dirty coal and nuclear industries. Grassroots support for a fundamental shift in energy policy towards renewable energy and energy savings was today thrust right under the noses of the most powerful politicians in Europe."

Individual stars in the installation - each 2 metres high - were annotated with signatures, collected out on the streets across Europe in the last few weeks. Thousands of people have endorsed renewable energy and energy efficiency, calling for a shift away from energy based on dirty fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power.

Each star of the giant EU energy flag represented a specific demand to EU leaders as they agree an action plan today that will govern Europe's energy future for the coming decades.

• A wind turbine and a sun called for greater promotion of renewable energy: Friends of the Earth insisted that EU leaders adopt a binding target of 25% of primary energy demand to be met by renewable energy by 2020, broken down into specific sectoral targets to stimulate investment in all areas, such as heating and cooling and electricity.
• A low-energy lightbulb symbolised the demand for a greater commitment to increasing energy efficiency. Friends of the Earth highlighted that although the EU has acknowledged that it has the potential to cut its energy consumption by 20% by 2020, the summit will still fail to make concrete commitments to achieve it.
• An anti-nuclear symbol called for a phase-out of nuclear power. Friends of the Earth is opposed to nuclear power playing any role in Europe's future energy policy, as it is dangerous, sensationally expensive compared to renewable energy and leaves a legacy of radioactive waste for hundreds of years.
• An anti-coal symbol represented the demand for a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels. Friends of the Earth exposed the glaring hole in the proposed new energy policy, which aims to improve the functioning of Europe's energy markets but does not address billions of Euros of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
• An anti-oil symbol demanded a reversal of unsustainable trends in the transport sector, for example by forcing carmakers to make more fuel-efficient cars. The action plan for Europe's new energy policy almost ignores the transport sector, which is absurd considering that transport guzzles 70-80% of foreign oil imports and that the EU aims to reduce its dependency on foreign oil.

Friends of the Earth also reiterated that the target adopted by the EU today for reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions should be at least 30% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. Governments will today adopt only a 20% unilateral target, despite recommending that 30% is the level of reduction necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.