It’s a quiet climate success story: over 40 countries and public finance institutions have cut their international public finance to fossil fuels by two-thirds over the past three years.  

At the COP 26 climate talks in Glasgow, UK, 39 countries and public finance institutions launched the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP). They committed to end their overseas public support for fossil fuels and instead scale up their support for clean energy. Joined by Norway and Australia at COP 28, the partnership now numbers 41. 

Our research finds that countries are largely delivering on their promise. Signatories’ collective fossil fuel financing in 2023 amounted to $5.2 billion, a decrease of two-thirds from the pre-CETP baseline. This is a historic achievement. 

There are a few laggards, such as the United States, Italy, Switzerland and Germany, which either still need to change their policies or have passed substandard policies that leave large loopholes for fossil fuel financing. However, even among these signatories fossil fuel finance is falling. 

Clean energy for the rich?

Source: IISD report, August 2024: Out With the Old, Slow With the New

Source: IISD report, August 2024: Out With the Old, Slow With the New

This is symptomatic of a larger issue. In 2023, China and advanced economies accounted for 90% of new solar PV and wind capacity installations, and 85% of investment in renewable energy. The lack of clean energy investment going to emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) outside of China is a worrying trend. 

Crowding in private investment 

Public finance is critical to bridge the gap in clean energy investment. It can lower risk for other investors because it is often provided at preferential below-market rates and longer time horizons. This can crowd in much larger flows of private investment for proposed projects. 

The International Energy Agency estimates that for the world to stay on a 1.5°C pathway, annual concessional funding in EMDEs from developed economies and development finance institutions would need to reach $80-100 billion annually by 2030. 

EU hit with lawsuit over green labelling of aviation and shipping investments

CETP signatories, and other high-income countries and public financial institutions, have an important role to play in scaling up concessional finance for the energy transition in EMDEs. They need to adopt ambitious and quantitative targets for rapidly scaling up good-quality public finance for clean energy. 

To meet the CETP’s clean energy commitment, signatories should, at the very least, aim to provide as much clean energy finance per year as their average pre-CETP fossil fuel support. Ideally, policies should stipulate much larger amounts. 

Avoiding more debt stress 

Policies should target low-income countries for finance to achieve universal energy access. The cost of capital is often higher in these countries due to a range of fiscal, socioeconomic and climate risks. But that should not be an excuse for public development finance institutions not to invest, since they are not driven by the profit motive. 

To be effective, financing needs to be high-quality. From 2020 to 2022, 83% of signatories’ international clean energy finance to low- and lower-middle-income countries was delivered through loans.  

Clean energy finance must not further burden Global South countries, which are spending almost half their budgets servicing debts. Policies must ensure a much larger portion will be delivered through grants and highly concessional instruments.  

Switzerland and Canada propose ways to expand climate finance donors 

The story is not over in terms of shifting public money away from fossil fuels. China, Republic of Korea and Japan are not CETP members, and together they continue to provide an average of $21 billion annually in international public finance for fossil fuels. The next step is to bring these countries along with G20 countries and multilateral development banks on board with the CETP initiative. 

Domestic public finance for fossil fuels persists, as well as fossil fuel subsidies. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies alone exceeded $1.5 trillion in 2022. Ending these subsidies can free up even more public money to invest in solutions for people and planet. 

In the year of the new climate finance goal to be agreed at COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, every penny counts.

The post Leaders are cutting fossil fuel finance – next comes unlocking clean energy for all appeared first on Climate Home News.

In question is a proposed development called the Energy Transition Zone (ETZ), which is intended to bring in more renewable energy investments as the city tries to cut its dependence on the oil and gas industry that has defined it for half a century. 

As the UK’s new Labour government promises not to issue any more oil and gas licences, the future of the sector is in doubt and the company behind the ETZ says it wants to “protect and create as many jobs as possible” in the region through investing in clean energy.

But the ETZ has received significant pushback from community groups in the part of Aberdeen it is destined for. That’s because the proposed development, as currently designed, would pave over about a third of St. Fittick’s Park in Torry, the only public green space in one of Scotland’s most neglected urban areas.

The battle over St Fittick’s Park illustrates the friction that is emerging more frequently around the world as the ramp-up of clean energy infrastructure changes communities. Climate Home has reported on these tensions provoked by Mexico’s wind farms, Namibia’s desert hydrogen zone, Indonesia’s nickel mines and Germany’s Tesla gigafactory.

Just transition?

The ETZ is backed by fossil fuel giants BP, Shell and local billionaire Ian Wood, whose Wood Group made its money providing engineering and consulting services to the oil and gas industry.

The plan is to create campuses focused on hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, offshore wind, and skills development in an area initially the size of 50 football pitches, but expanding as private investment grows. 

To this end, ETZ Ltd – the company set up to build and run the zone – will receive up to £80m ($103m) from the UK and Scottish governments. Announcing some of that funding in 2021, the Scottish government’s then net zero, energy and transport secretary Michael Matheson said “urgent, collective action is required in order to ensure a just transition to a net-zero economy”, adding “Scotland can show the rest of the world how it’s done”.

But many Scottish climate campaigners don’t see this as a just transition. About 100 of them travelled to St. Fittick’s Park last week to hold a five-day “Climate Camp” in a clearing that would become part of the ETZ.

One camper, who did not want to give her name, told Climate Home that the energy transition should not “exacerbate existing inequalities, but try to redress existing inequalities”. A just transition, she said, must protect both workers in the fossil fuel industry and community green spaces.

Another protestor who did not want to giver her full name is Torry resident Chris. She said “the consultation process was flawed”. Not many people participated to start with, and some stopped going to meetings because “they were disillusioned with the way that good ideas were co-opted and then used to justify the expansion of the industrial area into the park”, she added.

Green MSP Maggie Chapman at the Climate Camp on 13 July (Photo: Hannah Chanatry)

Local Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Maggie Chapman, from the Scottish Green Party, agreed, adding “the best transition zone plan in the world will fail” if it is done to a community rather than with meaningful input from them.

Another protesting resident, David Parks, said wealthier parts of the city would not have been disregarded in the same way. “You wouldn’t see this in Old Aberdeen and Rosemount,” he said. “[Torry] is just kind of the dumping ground for all these projects that you wouldn’t get off with anywhere else.”

Industrial developments have encroached on the old fishing town of Torry for decades. Today, residents are hemmed in by an industrial harbour, roads and a railway and live alongside a waste-to-energy incinerator, a sewage plant, and a covered landfill. 

David Parks at the Climate Camp in St. Fittick’s Park on 13 July (Photo: Hannah Chanatry)

Some of the activists also take issue with the emphasis the ETZ places on hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, which they see as “greenwashing”. 

Hydrogen is a fuel that can be made without producing greenhouse gas emissions, and used to decarbonise industries like steel-making which are difficult to clean up.

But a Climate Camp spokesperson told Climate Home that, “given the industry’s tendencies” and the fact that 99% of hydrogen is currently made using fossil fuels, they assume it will be produced in a polluting way at the ETZ.

Backers respond

ETZ Ltd told Climate Home in a statement that the project is committed to collaborating with the local community, particularly on efforts to refurbish what would be the remainder of the park. 

While the ETZ’s opponents argue there are existing industrial brownfield sites in the area that could be used instead of the park, the company said the area in St. Fittick’s Park next to the port is essential for the development to draw in substantial investment for renewables and for Aberdeen to compete in a new energy market.

Many brownfield sites are already planned for use by the ETZ, and would not provide the kind of logistical access needed for the planned projects, they added.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

“Almost all other ports in Scotland are making similar investments, and we simply don’t want Aberdeen to miss out on the opportunity to position itself as a globally recognised hub for offshore renewables and the significant job benefits this will bring,” said the statement.

The company added that the original plans for use of the park had been considerably reduced and the new master plan includes several measures to revitalise parts of the park and boost public access. It includes several parklets, a boardwalk, enhanced wetlands and a skate and BMX bike park.

While the oil industry’s backing has raised campaigners’ eyebrows, ETZ Ltd said the industry’s involvement is key to ensuring the development of skills and jobs central to the ETZ’s goals. 

The section of St. Fittick’s Park  up for development was rezoned in 2022 by the Aberdeen City council in order to allow industrial use of the land. Campaigners have challenged that decision and Scotland’s highest civil court will issue a judicial review later this month.

“You can’t just switch it off”

The ETZ dispute is just one example of efforts across Scotland to navigate the planned shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Tools to support a transitioning workforce have stalled. An offshore skills passport is meant to streamline and unify the certification process for both the fossil fuel and renewable offshore industries, to enable workers to go more easily from one sector to the other. But it was delayed for years before a “roadmap to a prototype” was released in May this year.

“The people can see a future, but it’s not happening – and they can see the current reality, which is [fossil fuels] declining, and that makes it very challenging,” said Paul de Leeuw, director of the Energy Transition Institute at Aberdeen’s Robert Gordon University. 

He said the focus needs to be on manufacturing and the supply chain, as that supports about 90% of employment in renewables such as solar and wind power. “If you don’t get investment, you don’t get activity, you don’t get the jobs,” he added.

That’s the key concern for Alec Wiseman, who spoke to Climate Home while walking his dog in St. Fittick’s Park on Saturday. He seemed mostly unbothered by the climate camp, but complained it meant he couldn’t let his dog off leash. 

Alec Wiseman walks his dog in St. Fittick’s Park on 13 July (Photo: Hannah Chanatry)

A Torry resident, Wiseman worked offshore for 25 years. He said he wants the ETZ to leave the park alone – and he also wants the overall energy transition to slow down until there is a clear plan.

“The government needs to sit down with the oil companies and figure out something proper” for both the transition and the ETZ, he said, expressing scepticism about employment in wind energy. Overall, operating wind farms, once they’re up and running, does not require as many skilled workers as operating an oil and gas field. “You can’t just switch it off [the oil and gas],” he said.

Lack of planning is what worries Jake Molloy, the recently-retired regional head of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union (RMT). Before leading the union, Molloy spent 17 years working offshore, and now sits on Scotland’s Just Transition Commission. He has spent years advocating for a fair deal on behalf of workers and local communities.

“We need to do that value-sharing piece, that community-sharing piece, which was lost with oil and gas,” he said, referencing the privatisation of the industry in the 1980s. Right now, he says, communities that bear the brunt of the impact of oil and gas production don’t see the majority of the benefits – those flow to corporations. “If we allow that to happen again, we’re a million miles away from a just transition,” he warned.

UK court ruling provides ammo for anti-fossil fuel lawyers worldwide

Molloy also thinks the investment and jobs promised by the ETZ are not realistic, because previous changes to government policies caused too much whiplash, making investors shaky. However, he is curious about what will come from Labour’s announcement of Great British Energy, described as a “publicly-owned clean energy company” headquartered in Scotland.  He also hopes to see climate change addressed on a crisis footing, similar to the approach to the COVID pandemic.

There are indications of renewed momentum on renewable energy in the UK. The Labour government has already lifted an effective ban on onshore wind in England and brought together a net-zero task force led by the former head of the UK’s Climate Change Committee,  Chris Stark. 

“In the context of an unprecedented climate emergency,” the ETZ said in a statement, “there are widespread calls from government and industry for energy transition activities to be accelerated.”

But, for many, it is still too soon to know whether that shift will materialise, and be implemented in a just way.

“The opportunities are there,” said MSP Chapman. But, she added, “it requires political and social will to make it happen and that’s the big challenge.”

(Reporting by Hannah Chanatry; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Scottish oil-town plan for green jobs sparks climate campers’ anger over local park appeared first on Climate Home News.

“Overcapacity”, a geeky economic term, has recently become the new buzzword for international discussion around China’s solar and electric vehicle industries. It is also becoming one of the thorniest issues in China’s relations with other major economies.

Notably, the word was mentioned five times in the G7 Leaders Communiqué released last week, with the G7 countries framing it collectively as a global challenge.

It is a debate that was initially sparked by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her April visit to Beijing. According to her, China’s cleantech industry has excess capacities that cannot be absorbed domestically, leading to exports at depressed prices. And she stressed that this should be a concern not only for the US, but also for Europe and other emerging markets.

Days after climate talks, US slaps tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels

China strongly disagreed with this claim, while Yellen’s concern resonated in the EU, which has long focused on China’s market dominance. In short, there is an overcapacity of “overcapacities”, with neither side finding identical terms of reference. But as this debate is a harbinger of how climate solutions and political agendas will interweave, it’s worth parsing out some lessons for each side, on their own terms.

The US’ “overcapacity” claim as presented by Yellen is a non-starter in China.

China’s clean energy industry is an important point of pride internationally and a source of legitimacy domestically for Beijing. From that perspective countering the “overcapacity” claim is both emotionally and strategically important.

Strategically, this claim is being used to justify trade measures and tariffs against China’s clean energy products. Emotionally, the cleantech industry is a modern-day success story of China’s entrepreneurship and innovation. In China’s public discourse, the US “overcapacity” claims lands as a rejection of that success.

Lithium tug of war: the US-China rivalry for Argentina’s white gold

The result is a political debate in which – by design – no side can convince the other. And the lesson? This posturing is at odds with US-China climate diplomacy as we’ve known it to function in the past. Whatever objectives this approach serves, it does not include closer climate collaboration between the US and China, even as multilateral climate action at the UN level still requires them to take action in concert.

In China, discussion on “overcapacity” emerged from an ongoing conversation about how to manage investment hype. And the answer lies on the demand side.

For investors inside China at a time of challenging economics, few industries are as attractive as the clean energy industry. And business leaders have focused on the risks of hot money and breakneck expansion of clean energy manufacturing capacity for some time now, particularly in the solar industry.

This was probably the origin of “overcapacity”. But in China, this has been a familiar, almost perennial discussion of investment and industrial cycles. While the US argument equates exports to overcapacity, Chinese companies argue that it is demand that determines overcapacity, and they make investment and expansion decisions based on projections of both domestic and global demand.

Q&A: What you need to know about electric vehicles (EVs) and their batteries

That said, the size of China’s domestic market means it will remain the “base” for Chinese manufacturers. In the overseas market, the “overcapacity” claim underscores the complexity and uncertainties Chinese companies face.

For Chinese policymakers, one obvious response to the new market dynamics should be taking domestic demand to new levels. That means addressing lingering questions for China’s renewable energy future – namely, how to resolve the impact of coal. China’s power market was designed for a system dependent on coal, but it needs reform to allow wind and solar to take the central role. Injecting new political momentum to accelerate the reform will be key.

The EU has long been concerned about China’s market dominance, and the “overcapacity” debate is pushing it to decide its role in this trilateral trade and climate dynamic.

Even before this debate erupted, the EU had already begun, subtly, to diversify supply chains and build its own industrial strength, reducing dependence on Chinese products. Last week, the EU announced a maximum tariff of 38% on imported Chinese-made electric vehicles, concluding that Chinese EV makers are benefiting from “unfair subsidies”.

At this stage, it’s still unclear if this is the end of the EU’s low-key approach to date. Cultivating an EU-based clean industry hub without compromising the global response to climate change is a challenge, especially as the EU positions itself as a climate leader.

Entering the fray of US-China tension only makes this feat more complex, especially given uncertainties on the US end in an election year. How the EU approaches this climate and trade nexus will ultimately shape the trilateral dynamic among the world’s three largest carbon emitters in the coming years.

The Canadian city betting on recycling rare earths for the energy transition

For China, where relations with the EU and other countries are concerned, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at the hidden messages in the “overcapacity” debate. Other countries want more than just Chinese products.

Climate leadership is not a buyer-seller relationship, but one between partners who want solutions that create local jobs, develop opportunities, and enable native development of a sustainable future.

China should see its role in the global clean transition as more than a manufacturing hub. The transition requires tools, technology, finance and know-how, and China has much to offer. It is time for China to think more creatively about how to leverage its industrial advantages to provide the solutions with which the world is currently under-supplied.

The post Lessons from trade tensions targeting “overcapacity” in China’s cleantech industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

For too long, Africa has supplied the raw materials which drive development abroad, while Africans remain locked in endless cycles of poverty at home.  

This has been happening even before Western European colonial powers carved up the African continent in the 19th century’s “scramble for Africa”, exporting rubber, diamonds, gold, ivory, palm oil and other wealth, to process and transform it into saleable commodities. 

Today, this damaging pattern remains intact, as wealth continues to haemorrhage from Africa in this way. 

To take just one graphic example: 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa – or 53% of the region’s population — still don’t have access to electricity on a continent that possesses all the minerals needed to build its own energy infrastructure.  

Now a new “scramble for Africa” has begun. This time, it is for the African minerals that will be crucial for the world to have any chance of halting climate chaos.  

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

The African continent holds vast quantities of the transition minerals – such as cobalt, lithium and nickel – which are used to help produce, transport, store and use electricity generated from cleaner sources such as wind and sun – and which are a prerequisite for a clean energy future.  

Tanzania, for instance, possesses huge reserves of nickel which is a key ingredient in the lithium-ion batteries that power everything from mobile phones to electric vehicles. 

As the world rushes to secure these precious materials, Africans must break with the past.  

The wealth these minerals generate must spur African development, giving our citizens the roads, hospitals, schools, electricity and other basic services so many of them desperately need. 

“New” partnerships? 

Many of Africa’s historic exploiters are among the Western powers which are now rushing to secure transition minerals. 

The US-led “Mineral Security Partnership,” which includes the European Union and other most powerful economies from the OECD block, is positioning itself in Africa’s resource-rich countries.  

Concurrently, the EU is supposedly redesigning its ties with Africa and other mineral-rich nations through “Strategic Partnerships“.  

All those initiatives are committed to “bring economic benefits to local communities”, allowing partner countries to “move up the value chain” – but are effectively enveloping the continent from multiple angles in a concerted push for resources. 

And it is no secret that mineral exports are ruled by international trade policies set up, influenced and dominated by Western powers, allowing them to access African resources at a good price. 

Zimbabwe looks to China to secure a place in the EV battery supply chain

In this realm, it remains an open question whether these partnerships will pave the way for genuine development, or – as so often in the past – merely serve foreign interests.  

In other words, will they simply be a means of continuing business as usual – keeping Africa trapped in ‘extractivism’ – or offer Africa a path to self-determination? 

Challenging the status quo 

The OECD Forum on Responsible Minerals Supply Chains, taking place this week in Paris, is a crucial opportunity for African leaders to assert their vision for a new era of mineral resource management.  

This event remains a forum dominated by consumer regions’ representatives and priorities, but we Africans need to make ourselves heard.  

We cannot wait any longer. African leaders must challenge the status quo and advocate for deals and trade policies that empower producer nations. 

They can also insist that mining companies respect the rights of the Indigenous and local communities most impacted by mining – peoples whose way of life protects priceless ecosystems that are crucial for preventing climate change, biodiversity loss and the risk of future pandemics emerging from deforested landscapes.  

Calls for responsible mining fail to stem rights abuses linked to transition minerals

Free trade rules favour already industrialised regions. One of the ways to counter this is by creating a web of preferential trade agreements among African countries. This would allow them to access their neighbours’ transition minerals at lower prices, to help them build their own clean energy technologies.  

Regional collaboration is the key to ensuring that Africa gains its rightful place in the new power map drawn by the energy transition. The African Union, the Southern African Development Community and other regional blocs could play a pivotal role in this process, promoting intra-regional trade and economic cohesion. 

African civil society works across borders to ensure that deals signed by African governments with consumer regions reflect the continent’s collective interests. But we can’t do this alone. 

We need to unite with our leaders around a just vision for our minerals. Only then can the continent truly benefit from them, turning the page on a history of exploitation and underdevelopment.  

The post Africa must reap the benefits of its energy transition minerals  appeared first on Climate Home News.

This is Azerbaijan’s first large-scale solar power plant. It opened last October and the Emirati company developing it, Masdar, says it can power 110,000 homes.

Climate Home visited the solar park as part of a media tour organised and sponsored by the Azerbaijan COP29 Presidency, which is arranging the UN climate summit in Baku this November.

At the park’s opening ceremony, in front of Sultan Al-Jaber – Masdar’s CEO who led the COP28 climate summit in Dubai – Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev boasted about his country’s determination in “moving towards a green agenda”. 

“This is our contribution not only to the future development of Azerbaijan but to the issues related to climate change,” he told the assembled dignitaries. 

But despite this rhetoric, climate scientists have questioned Azerbaijan’s climate credentials as it prepares to host the COP29 summit. 

An increase in renewable energy production does not mean Azerbaijan is planning to leave its vast oil and gas reserves in the ground. Aliyev said last month that Azerbaijan will try to sell abroad the gas it saves by not using it in power stations at home. Europe is the main target customer, as it shifts away from Russian gas supplies.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

On top of selling its surplus, Azerbaijan is planning to extract more gas thanks, in part, to fresh investments from foreign fossil fuel giants like Britain’s BP, France’s TotalEnergies and Emirati oil giant ADNOC, which Al-Jaber also heads. 

Bill Hare, CEO of climate science non-profit group Climate Analytics, called Azerbaijan’s plans “a fantasy”. “Ramping up renewables won’t make a dent in emissions unless they displace fossil fuels in the system,” he told Climate Home. “You can’t tackle climate change without getting rid of fossil fuels.” 

A spokesperson for COP29 said gas is “an ideal transition fuel in the production of electricity”. In emailed comments, they added that gas exported to Europe can replace coal power – which currently provides around 15% of the EU’s electricity – in the short to medium-term, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Azerbaijan is not alone in pursuing both renewable energy and fossil fuel production. Most fossil fuel producers – including wealthy nations like the US, UK and Canada – have no plans to stop producing oil and gas. That’s despite the International Energy Agency (IEA) warning that new fossil fuel extraction projects are not compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

The COP29 spokesperson said Azerbaijan’s strategy does not contradict IEA scenarios, noting those do not exclude continued investment in existing oil and gas assets and approved projects.

A fossil fuel economy

Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel industry is steeped in history. As early as the 13th century, Italian explorer Marco Polo wrote of Baku’s “stream of oil in such abundance that a hundred ships may load there at once”. 

In the 19th century, Azerbaijan gave birth to modern crude refining, and by the 20th century it accounted for around half of the world’s oil production, helping fuel the Soviet Union’s victory in World War Two.

Oil and gas remain omnipresent today. The Flame Towers, Baku’s iconic skyscrapers, are a symbol of fossil fuel wealth. At night, their facades light up to display flickering flames in a reference to the naturally-occurring fires produced by gas leaks that earned Azerbaijan its name, “The Land of Fire”. 

The logo of SOCAR, the state-owned oil and gas firm, emblazons the national football team shirts, while one of the country’s oldest oil fields sits just behind Baku’s Olympic Stadium, the venue for the COP29 climate summit. 

Oil fields on the outskirts of Baku, Azerbaijan, April 2o24. Photo: Matteo Civillini

By global standards, Azerbaijan is no longer a major fossil fuel producer, pumping less than 1% of the world’s oil and gas. But its economy remains heavily dependent on the income they generate. Fossil fuels make up over 90% of all exports and 64% of government revenue.

At the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin last month, Aliyev said that “having oil and gas deposits is not our fault. It’s a gift from God. We must not be judged by that. He added that “our oil and gas will be needed for many more years, including in European markets”.

A shrinking market?

European countries have historically been the main destination market for Azerbaijani oil and gas, and flows have been rising in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

As Europe tried to wean itself off Moscow’s supplies, the European Commission went looking around the world for alternative sources of gas to keep the lights on and curb skyrocketing prices. In Azerbaijan, it struck a new deal to double gas exports by 2027. 

Baku is now scrambling to make good on that pact, while using it as a lever to expand its lucrative gas industry. The country could boost its gas production by more than a third over the next decade, according to data analysis by campaigning group Global Witness. 

“We are largely investing in increasing our gas production,” said Aliyev in Berlin, “because Europe needs more gas from new sources.” 

But energy experts question that reasoning. While looking for new gas supplies in the short term, the war in Ukraine also prompted the EU to fast-track its transition towards renewable sources of energy. Its strategic energy plan, laid out in 2022, would see overall gas demand in the bloc halve by 2030. 

“There will be a lot of supply globally and not that much demand on the European side,” said E3G analyst Maria Pastukhova. “Looking at the amounts alone, the EU will not need any additional gas from Azerbaijan if it delivers on its energy transition policies.”

Clean, cheap or fair – which countries should pump the last oil and gas?

But much will also depend on what kind of gas the block will continue to rely on. Norway, Europe’s top supplier, Algeria and Azerbaijan provide it through pipelines, while the United States and Qatar ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the continent. 

“It’s hard to say at the moment [which supplies will remain],” added Pastukhova. “But it isn’t very likely that Azerbaijan can continue to bank on crazy gas revenues from the EU. We don’t see readiness from European buyers to sign long-term contracts beyond 2035.” 

Sell, don’t burn

Meanwhile, Baku also wants to ensure that its gas is channelled towards the lucrative export market not burned at home.

Central to this strategy is the rollout of renewable energy. With strong winds blowing from the Caspian Sea and sun shining for a large part of the year, Azerbaijan boasts significant clean energy prospects.

But that potential has so far been largely untapped. Renewable sources, mainly from three hydro power stations, produced only 7% of Azerbaijan’s electricity in 2023. The government wants to increase that to 30% by 2030. 

If that target is met, Aliyev says that solar and wind will pump 5 gigawatts of clean electricity into the national grid, freeing up “at least” 5 billion cubic metres of gas for the European market.

At Masdar’s sprawling solar park in Garadagh, this plan is being rolled out. The park spans the equivalent of 770 football pitches, but was built in just under two years. It cost $262 million, with multilateral development banks stumping up just under half of that.

Speaking to journalists inside the plant’s control room, Kamran Huseynov, deputy director of the Azerbaijan Renewable Energy Agency, said eight more solar and wind projects are being developed for the coming years. “We are quite sure we can reach the target [of 30% renewables capacity] by 2028,” he added. 

As in Garadagh, foreign energy companies will be at the helm of those eight projects. Masdar will build two more solar parks and one onshore wind farm. Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power is erecting a wind farm just north of Baku by the Caspian Sea.

Renewables-processed fossil fuels?

Later this year, BP is expected to start building a solar farm in the district of Jabrayil. This is one of the territories Azerbaijan captured after a long-running dispute with Armenia centred on the Nagorno-Karabakh region. 

Baku seized control of these areas in a two-part military offensive that started in 2020 and ended last autumn. As a result, some 136,000 ethnic Armenians who had lived in Nagorno-Karabakh fled in a mass exodus which, according to Armenia and the EU Parliament, amounted to “ethnic cleansing”. Azerbaijan has rejected those accusations. 

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

The Azeri government is now promoting a green vision for Nagorno-Karabakh which involves the construction of government-branded “net zero” villages. It has also designated the region as a “green energy zone”, aiming to attract investment in renewable energy.

BP was the first major international energy firm to jump at that opportunity. In 2022, the company’s regional president for Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, praised Baku’s efforts to turn Karabakh into “the heart of sustainable development”. 

BP wants electricity produced from Jabrayil’s solar power plant to make some of its vast oil and gas operations in Azerbaijan less dirty.

The British energy giant runs the Sangachal terminal, one of the world’s largest oil and gas processing facilities and the starting point for the pipelines transporting gas to Europe. Processing all of this oil and gas requires power, which BP currently gets from burning gas in generators.

The Sangachal oil and gas terminal in Azerbaijan. Photo: Azerbaijan Presidency

According to Elnur Soltanov, Azerbaijan’s deputy energy minister and the COP29 CEO, these are “very inefficient” and produce “some of the dirtiest electricity” in the country. After being electrified, the fossil fuel processing plant will receive the same amount of electricity from the grid as the solar park generates, according to Azernenerji, the country’s grid operator.

The process will also free up “more gas to export to world markets”, BP says.

BP’s project is being developed in partnership with SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas giant. After setting up a “green energy” unit last year, SOCAR says it is working with international companies, like BP, “in order to get the know-how” and “learn in the process” with the goal of transforming into a “comprehensive energy company”.  

“Sooner or later, hydrocarbons will slowly die out – not right away,” Teymur Guliyev, deputy vice president for the energy transition at SOCAR, told reporters including Climate Home. “But we have to start our transformation process when we still have plenty of time to plan accordingly, go through trial and error.” 

The COP29 spokesperson said Azerbaijan “is making significant progress” towards reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Azerbaijan has a goal to reduce emissions 40% by 2050 as outlined in its national climate plan (NDC). It has promised to submit a new NDC that is aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5C, which is due by early 2025.

How to move it

While the current priority for Azerbaijan’s renewables push appears to be maximising its gas exports, the government is also wrangling over how to sell its clean energy to Europe, when gas demand falls.

COP29’s Soltanov told Climate Home and other international journalists that he is “very optimistic” about Azerbaijan’s green transition. “Azerbaijan has been at the forefront of the oil revolution, it has been at the forefront of the gas revolution, and it has all the conditions to be at the forefront of the clean energy revolution as well,” he added. 

But the transportation of green electricity remains an obstacle.

The main option being explored is laying an electric cable under the Black Sea, stretching over 1,155 kilometres between Georgia and Romania. Originally the project, under discussion for several years, had the stated intention of linking Georgia to the European transmission network and boosting its energy security. 

But it was recently revamped as a possible route to carry Azerbaijan’s clean energy to the European market. In December 2022, the leaders of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania and Hungary formed a partnership to push the project forward, indicating it could be completed by 2029 at a cost of €2.3bn ($2.5bn). A two-year long feasibility study is currently in its final stage, according to President Aliyev. 

The leaders of Azerbaijan, Romania, Hungary and Georgia, and the European Commission President, at the signing of a green energy partnership in December 2022. (Photo: Inquam Photos/Octav Ganea via Reuters)

Implementing the project could be challenging given the fragile geopolitical situation in the region. The cable would run just south of the Crimean Peninsula, under Russian control, and near a theatre of war in Ukraine with the strong presence of military vessels. 

For Climate Analytics’ Bill Hare, “it’s a tricky location to attract investment and get built at the moment, but it would provide a lot of benefits in the long-term”. 

There are also questions over whether Azerbaijan’s current plans to export green energy via the Black Sea cable will yield a high-enough return to compensate for selling less fossil fuel.

“Electricity trade is a stable source of revenue, but it is also capital-intensive and not very high margin,” explained E3G’s Pastukhova. “It will not replace the same amount of export revenue that gas and oil have been contributing.”

“What Azerbaijan is doing right now [on renewables] is not enough and quite alarming because this country is so dependent on oil and gas revenue,” she said.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini in Azerbaijan; editing by Megan Rowling and Joe Lo)

Matteo Civillini visited Azerbaijan as part of an “energy media tour” organised and sponsored by the COP29 Presidency.

The article was updated on 17 May to include comments from a COP29 spokesperson received after publication. 

The post Azerbaijan pursues clean energy to export more ‘god-given’ gas to Europe appeared first on Climate Home News.

New data from a Transition Minerals Tracker compiled by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) shows that more than 630 allegations of human rights violations have been associated with minerals mining since 2010. Of those, 91 were made in the last year alone.

The tracker monitors human rights abuses associated with the extraction of seven minerals including copper, lithium and bauxite, which is new in this year’s update. These elements are essential for the production of solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and electrification more broadly.

The latest BHRRC data points to widespread violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights – such as forced relocation, water pollution and denial of access to traditional land – as well as attacks on human rights defenders and workers’ rights abuses.

BHRRC also registered 53 allegations of work-related deaths since 2010, with 30 percent of those newly reported in 2023.

Supply chain FAQ: What you need to know about critical minerals

Caroline Avan, BHRRC’s head of natural resources and just transition, said the situation is not improving. “The sector is blatantly failing at protecting those who generate its profits, and this is only the tip of the iceberg,” she said.

“We are probably only capturing a fraction of abuses because we rely on public data and so many issues don’t get reported,” she added. The BHRRC gives companies an opportunity to respond to the allegations it documents.

Just ten companies are associated with more than half of all allegations registered since 2010 – including China Minmetals, Glencore, Grupo Mexico, First Quantum Minerals and Solway Group – while 46% of the total originated in South America.

Allegations of human rights abuses linked to transition minerals by category 

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Avan explained that many abuses follow a pattern that begins with environmental violations –  such as water or soil pollution – compounded by inadequate consultation with local communities, which then leads to protracted conflict.

This has been the case at the Las Bambas copper mine in Peru, now owned by MMG Ltd – whose major shareholder is China Minmetals Corporation (CMC) – and formerly controlled by Glencore. It received the most allegations of rights abuses not only in 2023, but across the tracker’s full 13-year monitoring period.

The mine’s infrastructure, activities and expansion plans have led to a series of social and environmental impacts, provoking protests and blockades by Indigenous communities. Most recently, last November, 1,500 workers went on strike to ask for a larger share of profits.

CMC, MMG and Las Bambas have not responded to the BHRCC over the reported allegations.

New global principles

The persistence of human rights abuses in mineral mining is set to attract more attention, with the International Energy Agency estimating that mineral demand for clean energy applications is set to grow by three and a half times by 2030.

The BHRRC’s report notes that the mining sector is under pressure from civil society, Indigenous peoples and global policymakers alike to strengthen human rights protections.

For example, the new EU Batteries Regulation, adopted last July, obliges end users of battery minerals to carry out thorough supply chain due diligence.

“We are seeing the automotive industry asking more of the upstream mining sector, and that is good news,” said Avan. “But we are not seeing enough from the renewable energy sector in terms of asking mineral suppliers to ensure their operations are not linked with abuses.”

Days after climate talks, US slaps tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels

Last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres launched a high-level Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals tasked with developing a set of global principles to “safeguard environmental and social standards and embed justice in the energy transition”.

Guterres said supply chains must be “managed properly” to ensure that developing countries get a fair share of benefits and that the environment and human rights are protected.

“Too often, production of these minerals leaves a toxic cloud in its wake: pollution; wounded communities, childhoods lost to labour and sometimes dying in their work. And developing countries and communities have not reaped the benefits of their production and trade,” the UN chief said in comments at the launch.

“This must change… The race to net zero cannot trample over the poor,” he added. The panel is expected to deliver initial recommendations ahead of the UN General Assembly in September.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

The BHRRC’s Avan told Climate Home it was “concerning that countries in the Global North are rushing to sign strategic partnerships with resource-rich countries in the Global South because they want to secure their mineral supply chains, but the companies who will be involved in delivering those minerals are not asked much in terms of requirements for human rights protections”.

For companies, recommendations from the centre’s new report include adopting human rights policies and giving affected communities access to the benefits and governance of projects.

Avan said government regulation and better business practices are essential “to ensure that the global energy transition is a just one, centred on respect for human rights, fair negotiations and shared prosperity”.

“The alternative is rising resistance, conflict, and distrust – all threatening to slow the pace of the transition,” she added.

(Reporting by Daisy Clague, editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Calls for responsible mining fail to stem rights abuses linked to transition minerals appeared first on Climate Home News.

Gathered in NYC in mid-April, 87 Indigenous leaders from 35 countries met to hammer out a set of demands to address a common scourge: the green energy transition that has our peoples under siege.  

Worldwide, we are experiencing land-grabs and a rising tide of criminalization and attacks for speaking out against mining and renewable energy projects that violate our rights with impacts that are being documented by UN and other experts. Their research confirms what we know firsthand.     

And yet political and economic actors continue to ignore the evidence, pushing us aside in their rush to build a system to replace fossil fuels, while guided by the same values that are destroying the natural world.  

Ironically, we released this declaration amid the UN’s sustainability week – renewable energy was on the agenda. We were not.  

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

Indigenous peoples are not opposed to pivoting away from oil and gas, nor are we opposed to investing in renewable energy systems as an alternative.  

But we must have a say. More than half the mines that are expected to produce metals and minerals to serve renewable technologies are on or near the territories of Indigenous peoples and peasant communities.  

Resource extraction causing triple crisis  

In the words of the UN’s Global Resource Outlook 2024, released in March with little fanfare by the UN Environment Programme: “the current model of natural resource extraction…is driving an unprecedented triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution”. 

Mining companies have been offered a path to sustainability. Few have started down that path.  

And they won’t unless global and national decision-makers take advantage of this key moment in history to demand change. Indigenous leaders need to be at the table too.

As donors dither, Indigenous funds seek to decolonise green finance

We are not willing to have our territories become the deserts that mining companies create, leaking toxins into our rivers and soils and poisoning our sources of water and food, and by extension our children. 

The playing field for Indigenous peoples is massively unjust. The authors of the Global Resources Outlook cite evidence of national governments that favor companies’ interests “by removing the judicial protection of Indigenous communities, expropriating land…or even using armed forces to protect mining facilities”.  

Why should this matter to people on the other side of the planet? 

Proven to outperform the public and private sectors, Indigenous peoples conserve some of the world’s most biodiverse regions. Negotiators at global climate events do cite our outsize conservation role, but treaty language allows our governments to decide when and whether to recognize or enforce our rights.  

Companies are advised to “engage” with our communities – not so they can avoid harming us, but to prevent costly conflicts that arise in response to outdated and destructive practices. 

These “externalities” that chase us from our ancestral homes and damage our health and the ecosystems we treasure are revealed only when they become “material”, of concern to investors and relevant to risk analysts. 

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Our resistance is costly and material. Failure to properly obtain our consent before sending in the bulldozers can bring a project to a halt, with a price tag as high as $20 million a week. And communities are learning to use the tools of the commercial legal system to defend themselves. 

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School report that, over time, shareholders benefit most when companies heed the demands of their most influential stakeholders. Indigenous peoples are the stakeholders to please.  

Our communities disrupt supply chains, but when our rights are respected, we can also be the best indicators of a company’s intention to avoid harm to people and planet. 

Call for ban on mining in ‘no-go’ zones 

In the declaration we released in New York earlier this month, we called for laws to reduce the consumption of energy worldwide, and we laid out a path for ensuring that the green transition is a just one. 

We urged our governments to recognize and protect our rights as a priority; to end the killings, the violence and the criminalization of our peoples; and to require corporations to secure our free, prior and informed consent, and avoid harming our lands and resources. 

A growing body of evidence suggests that Indigenous peoples rooted to their ancestral lands can draw on traditional knowledge, stretching back over generations, to help nature evolve and adapt to the changing climate. We understand the sustainable use of wild species and hold in our gardens genetic resources that can protect crops of immeasurable economic and nutritional value. 

Current practices for extracting metals and minerals put our peoples at risk and endanger climate, biodiversity, water, global health and food security. Researchers warned earlier this year that the unprecedented scale of demand for “green” minerals will lay waste to more and more land and drive greater numbers of Indigenous and other local peoples from our homes. 

Q&A: What you need to know about critical minerals

So our declaration also calls on governments to impose a ban on the expansion of mining in “no-go” zones – those sites that our peoples identify as sacred and vital as sources of food and clean water. Indigenous communities, rooted in place by time and tradition, can help stop the green transition from destroying biomes that serve all humanity. 

The UN Secretary-General launches a panel on critical minerals today that seems to recognize the importance of avoiding harm to affected communities and the environment.  

This is a step in the right direction, but Indigenous peoples and our leaders – and recognition and enforcement of our rights – must be at the centre of every proposal for mining and renewable energy that affect us and our territories. This is the only way to keep climate “response measures”, made possible by the Paris Agreement, from harming solutions that exist already. 

The post Indigenous lands feel cruel bite of green energy transition  appeared first on Climate Home News.

For the first time in history, climate was very much on the ballot in this election. Voters faced a choice between climate inaction or a $2 trillion green revolution.

From a focus on clean energy in the presidential debates to the outcome of key senate races, here are five takeaways on the climate.

1. Most Americans consider climate change a serious threat

60% of Americans now view climate change as a major threat to the wellbeing of the United States, compared to 44% in 2009. The rise in concern is mainly among Democrats. In a survey in August, 68% of Biden supporters said climate was very important to their vote, compared to just 11% of Trump voters. Exit polls showed that two-thirds of voters see climate change as a serious problem. 

For the first time climate change featured as a prominent issue in the presidential debates. In both debates, Biden and Trump were asked how they would create jobs while tackling climate change and how they would ensure environmental justice. 

The focus on climate in this election shows that “environmental issues are important to voters, and increasingly becoming issues that candidates and campaigns can’t avoid discussing,” Hannah Blatt, communications director at EDF Action, advocacy partner of the Environmental Defense Fund, told Climate Home News. 

2. The clean energy revolution has already started

Biden’s climate plan, the most ambitious ever presented by a presidential candidate, pledged to deliver net zero emissions by 2050 and 100% clean electricity by 2035; while Trump promised voters that the US would “remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas on earth.” 

Biden has vowed to ABOLISH the American oil and natural gas industries, and BAN fracking. As long as I am President, we will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas on earth – and we will remain Energy Independent! https://t.co/gsFSghkmdM pic.twitter.com/v1RYeAvhC4

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2020

Trump’s focus on defending jobs in the coal, oil and gas sectors does not represent the views of most Americans. According to a survey by Politico, 69% of registered American voters – 83% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans – support the US transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables. 

In both blue and red states the green transition is already well underway, Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and former adviser to the UN secretary general on sustainable energy, told Climate Home News. “The genie is out of the bottle in red [Republican] states, even with a Trump administration.”

Texas, the heartland of US oil and gas, has the largest onshore wind market in the country, with over 27 GW of capacity and a further 7.5 GW in the pipeline, according to Kyte. Florida installed more solar capacity in the first quarter of this year than California, the leading state for renewables, and plans to increase its capacity with a further 7.4 GW over the next five years, she added.

3. States elected pro-climate senators 

There were several big wins for climate in the senate races. In Colorado, Democrat John Hickenlooper defeated Republican senator Cory Gardner. Former geologist Hickenlooper supports a 2050 net-zero goal, ending fossil fuel subsidies and banning new oil and gas leases on federal land. 

“Climate motivated voters everywhere, but especially in states like Colorado, where this summer’s wildfires brought the climate emergency front and centre,” Jamie Henn, cofounder of US environmental group 350.org, told Climate Home News. 

In a poll by the Environmental Defense Fund, 77% of Colorado voters said they were more concerned about climate change because of the wildfires. Two-thirds of voters said they would more likely vote for a senate candidate who supported aggressive action to tackle climate change. “Hickenlooper clearly benefited from that,” said Henn. 

“With an economy and way of life so dependent on our vast natural resources and outdoor recreation industry, Colorado voters are looking for leaders who will take this issue seriously and push for bold climate action at the federal level,” Amy Gray, campaigner at 350.org, told Climate Home.

In Arizona and Michigan, Democrats with strong environmental records also gained senate seats. Retired astronaut Mark Kelly, who supports massive investment in renewables, defeated Trump supporter Martha McSally in Arizona. In Michigan, Gary Peters, who has promised to protect residents from water contamination and toxic chemicals, unseated Republican John James. 

4. Florida backed Trump despite climate concerns

In Florida, the US state most at risk of coastal flooding, voters highlighted serious concern for climate change in the run-up to the election. In a poll by the New York Times, 54% said they were either “very worried” or “somewhat worried” that rising sea levels caused by global warming would significantly impact their lives. 

Despite the state’s vulnerability to climate change, the majority of Floridians voted for Trump on Wednesday. “Public polling showed that climate was a vulnerability for Donald Trump. This is true especially in Florida, where voters very much care about climate – but Florida is a big, complicated state and ultimately other issues came to the forefront,” Blatt said. 

Democratic-leaning Miami-Dade went to Trump, as voters from Venezuelan and Cuban backgrounds responded to the president’s portrayal of Biden as a radical socialist.

The high number of Trump votes were linked to “the socialist scare label attached to Biden, of which the Green New Deal was a part,” said Kyte. Trump’s anti-socialist rhetoric “worked for people who escaped leftist populism and communism to arrive in Miami,” she added.

5. Fracking did not swing the vote in key states

Fracking was a contentious issue in the election. Trump vehemently supports fracking, considering it a critical technology in his defence of jobs in the oil and gas industry. In the run-up to the election, Trump accused Biden of being anti-fracking and declared that a Democratic victory would be “economic death sentence for Pennsylvania.”

Biden’s climate plan includes a proposal to end new oil and gas development on federal land, but he has repeatedly stated that he will not ban fracking.

.@JoeBiden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 8, 2020

Despite Trump’s attack line, Biden won swing states which support thousands of fracking jobs. On Wednesday, he won Colorado and New Mexico, and was projected to overtake Trump’s lead in Pennsylvania as hundreds of thousands of postal votes were counted.

“The majority of Pennsylvanians oppose fracking. People support clean energy and want politicians who are willing to stand up to big oil,” Henn said. According to a survey by Climate Power 2020, 73% of Pennsylvanian voters support plans for the US to transition to a clean energy economy by 2050 and only 32% support the fracking industry. 

The post 5 ways climate issues played out in the US election appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Siemens)

By Gerard Wynn

Responding to climate change may be affordable but the scale of required emissions cuts is without precedent, implying a leap in political ambition and technological innovation.

Climate change entails global risks including crop destruction, species extinctions and sea level rise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its latest report.

The IPCC stressed that the cost of cutting emissions was small compared with global economic growth, and much smaller than the dangers of inaction, while carbon cut would entail wider co-benefits including cleaner air which would save millions of lives annually.

Nevertheless, climate action was still a big challenge which would require a re-think in the way countries grew their economies.

“Emissions have in general followed growth, with past instances of decline associated only with large-scale disruptions such as the collapse of the Soviet Union or special cases of policy intervention such as France and Sweden,” said the IPCC report, published on Sunday.

Many countries had achieved cuts in greenhouse gas emissions while growing their economies, called decoupling, but only when those emissions were measured according to a country’s territory.

Leading car manufacturers like Mercedes are already investing millions in electric vehicles (Pic: Mercedez Benz)

As countries grow, they tend to restructure their economies away from manufacturing to services, and import more of the goods associated with carbon emissions.

Once a wider accounting of emissions was considered, including consumption, emissions were rising almost everywhere, showing that the benefit of restructuring economies in cutting emissions was largely illusory.

“Calculating emissions based on a consumption-based approach sketches a more negative view on the decoupling of economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions.”

“The overall picture shows a substantial gap between territorial and consumption-based emissions, due to emissions embedded in trade. The data shows that the reduction in territorial emissions that has been achieved in the OECD countries has been more than negated by an increase in emissions in other countries, but related with consumption in OECD countries.”

The IPCC reviews the latest published science on climate change every five to six years. Sunday’s report was the last instalment of the latest report, focusing on policy options to cut emissions.

It found that countries should roughly halve global carbon emissions by 2050, compared with present levels which are still rising, to avoid the most dangerous climate change. They said that “business as usual” was not an option, and would result in dangerous global average warming of 3 to 5 degrees Celsius.

Growth

Increasing consumption was the main driver of rising emissions, the IPCC report found, saying this had outweighed improvements in efficiency.

The trend towards rising global consumption implied a major policy re-think, to drive emissions down.

“A key message of this report is that designing a successful climate policy may require going beyond a narrow focus on mitigation and adaptation, beyond the analysis of a few co-benefits of climate policy, and may instead require ‘mainstreaming’ climate issues into the design of comprehensive sustainable development strategies. In the broadest, boldest perspective, the choice of the development path is at stake.”

“The rapid rise in emissions since 1970 is in stark contrast with the rapid decline that would be needed over the coming century.”

“Looking to the future, it is important to be mindful that the energy system, which accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, is slow to change even in the face of concerted policy efforts.”

The report suggested that technology advances would be a central part of the economic transformation required, especially in the long term.

It quoted one study saying that it may take an extraordinary global effort in research and development to replace fossil fuels, with low carbon emitting renewable energy.

“Only with a national sense of threat and the entailing political will is it worthwhile and possible to set up an ‘exceptional R&D’ effort in the field of climate change mitigation,” the IPCC report said, quoting from the study published in the journal Energy Economics in 2011.

“The development and deployment of technology is central to long-term mitigation, since established fossil-fuel-based energy supply will need to be replaced by new low-carbon energy techniques,” the IPCC report added.

The post Climate challenge needs radical policies and technologies appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama will seek to establish a $2bn clean energy fund using fees from the oil and gas sector generated during the next ten years, according to White House officials.

The plan will look to cut US dependence on petrol for vehicles and develop its domestic clean technology sector.

According to the New York Times, the Energy Security Trust will be funded from the growth in licence fees from oil and gas firms looking to drill on public land and waters.

President Obama has talked a good game on climate change in recent months but this is the first solid policy announcement (Source: Flickr/White House)

The idea of using oil and gas revenues to fund research in fossil fuel alternatives was floated in his State of the Union address.

The Trust could represent the President’s first climate change policy conversion of rhetoric to reality since the election.

Promoting smaller cars, hybrids and electric vehicles, making fewer journeys and changing to biofuels could cut transport sector emissions by 80% by 2050, according to a US Department of Energy report released today.

The sector is responsible for a third of American’s greenhouse gas emissions, making transport’s potential contribution to US climate efforts just over 26%.

Obama has also approved 1.1GW of new renewable energy projects this week including the $100m McCoy solar farm in California that will power 200,000 homes.

Not a tax

The funding for the Energy Security Trust would not represent a new levy on the US energy sector.

President Obama, like his election rival Mitt Romney, promised to expand the area of public lands available for oil and gas drilling as well as opening up new offshore licences in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic.

The additional revenue from these licences as US oil and gas exploration balloons, would be ring-fenced under Obama’s new proposal.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has predicted that the US will overtake Russia as the world’s largest gas producer in 2015. Two years later it will surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in the world.

There are currently two separate proposals tabled by various Democrat and independent Senators and members of Congress.

One proposes a $20 per ton of CO2 levy on coal mines and oil refineries The other focus on major emitters and energy users with a range of charges between $15 and $35 being discussed.

The post Obama to establish $2bn clean energy fund appeared first on Climate Home News.

Renewable energy will miss out on increased funding from big investors if existing barriers are not removed, a new report has warned.

Institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance firms hold $71 trillion in assets but are holding back from clean energy investments by a number of policy and regulatory hurdles.

The report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) found that if all these were removed, institutional investors could provide 25-50% of all the necessary investment for renewable energy up till 2035.

“Policymakers and renewable energy project developers often look to institutional investment as a potential source of capital that can help reduce the cost of wind and solar projects,” said David Nelson, senior director, CPI.

Unlocking big institutional investment could provide one quarter to one half of the necessary funding for clean energy till 2035 (Credit: Vestas)

“Our findings suggest that in the near future, this is unlikely to be the case without drastic shifts in government policy, regulation, and investment practices,” added Nelson.

Many of these investment pots have a “fiduciary duty” to those whose money they manage, to invest wisely and do their best to get returns.

One fund investing in an entire renewables project could be seen as taking on too much risk with other people’s money.

The report suggests that by investing in the companies working on the projects instead or enabling different funds to pool their resources and so share the risk, more money could be channelled into the sector.

The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Investor Network on Climate Risk, and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative contributed a foreword to the report.

“While institutional investors may not be the panacea for renewable energy investment, there may be opportunities for institutional investors to make renewable energy a part of their portfolios while going partway towards meeting policymaker goals,” they wrote.

Many renewable energy technologies are propped up by government subsidies to help meet renewable energy targets. The threat of changes in this support can deter some investors.

The EU has a target to generate 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 while China has a 15% target for the same year.

CPI’s five fixes to attract renewable energy investment

-Fix policy barriers that discourage institutional investors from contributing to renewable energy projects.

-Improve investment practices, including the building of direct investment teams and improving evaluation of investor tolerance for illiquid investments. However, such changes can run counter to the culture of the organization and require careful consideration.

-Identify and improve any regulatory constraints to renewable investment that can be modified without negatively impacting the financial security, solvency or operating costs of the pension funds or insurance companies.

-Develop better pooled investment vehicles that create liquidity, increase diversification, and reduce transaction costs while maintaining the link to underlying cash flows from renewable energy projects.

-If the concern is raising enough finance rather than its cost, regulators and policymakers could shift from a project finance model to a corporate model for building renewable energy. Institutional investors could then increase investment in renewable energy through investment in utility and corporate stocks and bonds.

RTCC Video: Joan MacNaughton, President of the Energy Institute and sustainability advisor to Alstom Power on the need for clear renewables policies 

The post Report: Renewables missing out on $71trn investment pot appeared first on Climate Home News.

A start-up in the US is developing a football that generates and stores electricity when kicked and can be used to charge lamps and batteries.

The Soccket Ball contains an “inductive coil mechanism” that converts kinetic energy when the ball is kicked to electricity.

The project already has the backing of Spain and Barcelona forward David Villa and the Clinton Global Initiative but now needs more investment.

The Soccket ball can power a lamp for three hours after 30 minutes of playing time (Source: Socket)

The group behind the ball have launched a Kickstarter crowd sourcing campaign to raise $75,000 for the next stage of its development.

At the time of writing, a $99 pledge gets you your very own Soccket and lamp, which you can divert to a developing country if you choose.

Playing with the ball for 30 minutes can power a lamp for three hours. The new investment will be used to improve the efficiency of the mechanism to increase its benefit.

Between 1.2 and 1.5 billion people live without access to electricity. Sparsely populated areas are too expensive for some developing countries to connect leaving so called off grid solutions, typically small solar panels, as the only option.

Mobiles have become a valuable tool in developing countries with mobile based micro finance and agricultural SMS alerts just some of the advantages they can bring to the rural poor.

Many living off the main electricity grid will pay to charge their mobile phone at central locations.

The Soccket’s lamp could also give a boost to education by allowing children to study at home after dark.

Replacing kerosene lamps and candles, with electric lighting also has health benefits from the removal of their fumes.

Ban Ki-moon’s Sustainable Energy for All project has targeted a doubling in renewable energy globally and as the name suggests, universal access to energy by 2030.

Video: Soccket’s Kickstarter pledge

The post Kick out energy poverty with an electric football appeared first on Climate Home News.

Should wind power and other renewable technologies take focus when countries look to tackle climate change? (Source: Gonzalo Deniz/Flickr)

For many it may seem odd that one of the main solutions to climate change, renewable energy, is not top of the agenda at the UN climate talks.

Investment in renewable energy will be vital for any country wanting to tackle global warming.

As we move away from a fossil fuel powered planet, alternative energy sources from renewables such as wind and solar, to other sources such as nuclear and biomass will all have a role to play in keeping the lights on – and the cars running.

In many ways these topics are discussed at the UN negotiations. Parties debate market-based mechanisms, funding for the developing world and how to phase out fossil fuels.

Each of these paths eventually leads back to energy.

At the end of this month, the 195 nations party to the UN climate change convention will meet in Doha.

Ahead of talks, the Make the Link Climate exChange project brought children from UK secondary schools across the country together with some of the UK’s top climate change experts to lay out their priorities when it comes to climate action.

Top of the agenda at the COP18 summit will be the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the current legally binding commitment on emissions, and building the framework for the new climate deal that will include rich and poor, agreed in Durban last year to be ready for 2015.

But while countries battle to come up with targets to limit the world’s global carbon footprint, and the amount of greenhouse gases each country will be allowed to emit, would there not also be room to look at targets for reducing fossil fuel energy or for generating renewable energy?

As the students addressed the question ‘should renewable energy be given priority when it comes to global climate change efforts’, they too asked this question.

Student Exchange

With speakers including Professor Brian Hoskins, Director of Imperial University’s Grantham Institute, Professor Chris Rapley from University College London and Elizabeth Anderson, Government Liaison Officer for the UK Youth Climate Coalition, discussion topics included intergenerational justice, decarbonisation, planetary boundaries and embedded emissions.

Following Hoskins’ short presentation on how the UK must decarbonise to meet the Climate Change Act’s target of 80% by 2050; he was quizzed by one school on how much influence he has on policy makers.

His answer, not enough.

China was another interesting area of discussion. One girl asked the panel if the UK should be dictating to countries like China on climate change.

“We have to walk the talk,” said Rapley.

Along with Hoskins he warned that countries could not dictate another’s climate policy, but they could lead the way.

For anyone who has observed the negotiations, the China/USA example is a good example of this argument.

The USA believes China, as the world’s current biggest carbon emitter should take more action. Meanwhile China, an emerging economy, wants those countries historically responsible for climate change to ‘walk the talk’ and take action first.

Anderson highlighted the role the COP talks play in bringing young people from across the world together in one place, so that they can learn from one another.

While the parties in the negotiation halls may not, the youth groups work together and share ideas to take back to their own countries, she told the students.

Fossil fuels vs. renewables

The first solar panel was built in 1881, one of the students pointed out, so why has it taken so long for these technologies to develop? Can business and governments be trusted to not hold back these technologies?

“Fossil fuels were fantastic,” said Rapley. They saw to everybody’s needs and they improved the quality of life for huge sections of society. They helped businesses grow and people become richer.

“Nothing could compete with fossil fuels,” he added.

Unfortunately we did not see the damage these fuels were doing until it was too late, explained Hoskins.

“When you are asked if you are angry at what grown-ups have done,” he said. “You have to remember they were not aware of what they were doing.”

And what about the materials involved in the renewable energy technologies? Many of these are mined and travel vast distances to arrive in the UK.

Rapley called for life-cycle assessments on all possible future technologies. We must understand what goes into these devices and the impacts they have, he said.

Anderson too weighed up the benefits of different power sources. Not only in terms of the materials used, but also the wider benefits and impacts. The food vs. fuel debate surrounding biofuels, for example, she warned was an important debate to have.

As are the debates around nuclear and the impact of radioactive waste, she added. “This waste will be around for longer than the Catholic Church has been around today,” she said.

Other questions put to the panel included how to tackle climate change deniers, how high could CO2 levels go if countries stopped emitting today and why climate change is not included on the national curriculum.

Heading to COP

Many of the pupils when asked had never heard of the COP talks. But their questions showed both a level of understanding and a level of interest on climate change, above that of many older generations.

When asked about their own priorities for climate change action, their answers showed the breadth of interest among young people in environmental issues. While one boy called for a strong, secure and clean energy mix, another called for countries to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

Another young girl called for the rate of extinction loss and the impacts of climate change on biodiversity to be a key talking point.

As politicians and negotiators make their final preparations for the Doha conference, maybe they too should be asking what is important to the young people of their countries when it comes to their own actions on climate change.

The post Generations old and new send clean energy message to Doha appeared first on Climate Home News.

Climate change should be made a priority for the President and for Congress according to 77% of Americans in a new poll.

The survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication also unearthed resounding support for clean energy with 92% of those asked saying it should be a very high (31%), high (38%) or medium priority (23%) for both Congress and the President.

Would the Romney-Ryan Election campaign have chosen a different line in climate change armed with this polling data? (Source: World Affairs Council of Philadelphia)

The interviews were carried out between August 31 and September 12, two months before the US election and Hurricane Sandy, which was credited with bringing climate change back into the political debate days before the polls opened.

Both candidates had been silent on climate issues prior to the Hurricane.

Asked who they thought influenced elected officials on climate issues 50% said large campaign contributors have “a lot” of influence and 42% said fossil- fuel companies. Only 22% said environmentalists have a lot of influence and just 20% said the same of climate scientists.

National climate change policies have struggled to gain traction in Washington with the Republican Party, which controls Congress, deeply hostile to climate action.

State level actions have fared better with most establishing targets for renewable energy generation.

California’s landmark carbon trading platform will auction its first emissions allowances today and joins the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) programme which includes nine states.

Despite calls for the election’s winner Barack Obama to push climate change up the agenda, no great shift is anticipated at the next round of UN climate change talks in Doha.

The post Survey shows 77% of Americans think climate change is a priority appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Jennifer Morgan

Australia, one of world’s most carbon-intensive countries, recently began implementing a comprehensive national policy to address climate change and transition to a clean-energy economy.

Yesterday, WRI had the pleasure of hosting Mark Dreyfus, Australian Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, who outlined his country’s plans to a group of business, congressional, and NGO representatives.

One point that came through at the event is that Australia’s recent energy and climate choices can be very instructive to the United States. This post provides a quick look at Australia’s new policy and explores how it can inform and inspire US efforts to move toward a low-carbon future.

Why Did Australia Adopt a National Climate and Energy Policy?

Australia faces a high level of climate risk, with significant vulnerability to sea level rise as well as to extreme weather events like drought, heat waves, and wildfires. At the same time, the country is heavily dependent on carbon-intensive resources. Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions of any country in the developed world, and it’s the 15th largest emitter overall.

Recognizing the major environmental and economic risks of continuing with business as usual, as well as the opportunities involved in shifting to clean energy, Australia decided to transform its economy toward a more sustainable path. The policy change involved a long and at times acrimonious political debate, but the country’s leaders decided that they could no longer afford not to act.

Australian climate change protesters at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen. (Source: Flickr/Erland Howden)

What Does the Country’s New Climate Policy Look Like?

The Clean Energy Future Package, in effect since July, includes a national emissions reduction target of 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. To meet these targets, the Package features a range of policy instruments that will put a price on carbon, promote renewable energy (setting a target of 20 percent of Australia’s electricity coming from renewables by 2020), encourage energy efficiency, and reduce pollution.

The centerpiece of the policy is the carbon price, starting at $23 AUD/ton until July 2015. After that, a flexible phase will begin where the market will set the price. Around 500 businesses – large emitters spanning sectors that cover 68 percent of Australia’s emissions – will be required to pay for their pollution under the carbon pricing mechanism.

Australia has also created institutions to ensure that the system works effectively. A Climate Change Authority will monitor and advise on the level of pollution caps, operation of the carbon price and other initiatives, and progress toward meeting targets.

Related articles:

Australia joins Climate and Clean Air Coalition

Obama and Romney remain silent on climate change in first US Presidential Debate

Bangkok 2012 – Is Australia about to come out of the cold on climate change?

A Clean Energy Regulator will administer the carbon price mechanism, the Renewable Energy Target, a Carbon Farming Initiative, and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Program.

A Productivity Commission will monitor and report on what kinds of climate change policies other countries are implementing, as well as focus the effects of the program on jobs and competitiveness.

In addition, a Clean Energy Finance Corporation is being created to invest in renewables and energy efficiency. Australia hopes that these elements, as well as others, will help the country meet its emissions and pollution-reduction targets.

Australia has also paid close attention to the issue of fairness across the economy. In particular, the government thought about how to ensure that poorer households were protected from potentially higher energy costs. The country also put in a program to shield energy-intensive industries from the carbon price.

What Is Particularly Relevant for the United States?

As Secretary Dreyfus pointed out at the WRI event, there are many similarities between Australia and the United States in the context of climate and energy policy.

For example, the countries share similar emissions profiles, are extremely fossil-fuel dependent, and face highly partisan policy environments in which climate change is a divisive issue. While there are many lessons America can learn from the Australian experience, four key ones jump out:

It’s clear that a mix of policy instruments is needed across the economy. A carbon price is very important, but it’s not enough to actually create the needed transformation. Policies and incentives around renewable energy and energy efficiency are also needed, and creating a specific finance corporation to invest in clean technologies can be an effective part of an overall package.

Capitol Hill reflected in a solar panel, but will clean energy be reflected inside Washington's corridors of power? (Source: Flickr/FutureAtlas.com)

“Fairness” is a vital component of any policy deal. Australia had a long discussion nationally about how to create a fair approach. The country utilized various tools such as carbon policy and tax policy to protect households from any higher energy costs and shield energy-intensive industries from competitiveness concerns.

Like Australia, the United States has a wide divergence of economic circumstances, both in households and on the industry side. The Australian plan shows that with political leadership and time, effective solutions can be found.

We must not lose sight of the science when creating policies. Australia recognized its own vulnerability to climate change and shared that risk analysis with its citizens through town hall meetings across the country. It also created an independent commission to monitor these risks and make recommendations.

The United States also faces significant climate risks, from sea-level rise in Florida to forest die-back in the West. It’s very instructive for the United States to understand how Australia assessed its own risk and built institutions to forge a strong link between science and policymaking.

Persistence is essential. The Australian government had been trying to implement a comprehensive climate package for many years, and on the fourth try – despite intense opposition – it finally succeeded. It’s important for the United States to not give up, to learn from past debates, and to keep working to develop an effective approach that can meet the joint goals of economic growth and reduced emissions.

In the end, every country has to find its own way to address climate change risks and position itself in the clean-energy economy. The United States is currently a step behind Australia in determining its own pathway. Hopefully some inspiration from Down Under will motivate U.S. business and government to join the growing number of countries that are tackling climate change one step at a time.

This article was originally published on the WRI website.

The post What can the US learn from Australia’s clean energy roadmap? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Clean energy represents a route to economic recovery, according to former US President Bill Clinton.

Weighing in on a debate in the USA that is becoming increasingly polarised between Republicans and Democrats as the Presidential elections approach, Clinton says growth and environmental protection go hand in hand, citing examples from both sides of the Atlantic.

In an article for Time Magazine, Clinton writes: “It’s hard to top the economic success stories concerning clean energy, and it’s tragic that these achievements aren’t more widely known”.

“Germany, where the sun shines on average as much as it does in London, reportedly set the world record for electricity generated from the sun in a single day: 22 gigawatts, or roughly the output of 20 nuclear power plants.”

This week a variety of legislation has been presented by Republicans in Washington DC designed to protect the coal industry from environmental regulations and attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which they characterise as ‘Obama’s War on Coal’.

President Clinton has identified the clean energy sector as a good route out of the economic downturn. (Source: Flickr/Clinton Global Initiative)

Clinton said the US has wrongly labelled renewable energy as “expensive” and should take comfort from the experience of European nations.

“The clean-energy sector in the US was actually growing by 8.3% before the economic slowdown, more than twice the rate of the overall economy. In fact, those European countries meeting their Kyoto Protocol commitments have been among the least hard hit by the economic crisis, including Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

“If sustainable energy were bad economics, Costa Rica wouldn’t be one of the richest countries in the region, with what is arguably the greenest economy in the world,” he argued.

He also praised Brazil for balancing its development of oil and gas resources with the expansion of hydropower.

The main subsidy for renewable energy in the US expires at the end of this year with the outcome of November’s election likely to decide its fate beyond that.

Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said he will not renew the Production Tax Credit (PTC) while President Obama has pledged to keep it going.

The Clinton Global Initiative will hold its annual meeting from 23-25 September in New York with guests including both US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Related articles:

Republicans bid to stop Obama’s ‘War on Coal’

Romney and Obama quiz on climate change and energy highlights how close their policies really are

Grant Thornton report highlights role governments can play in supporting cleantech sector

Suzlon: Wind power soon to be cheaper than fossil fuels

The post Bill Clinton backs green business to drag USA out of economic blues appeared first on Climate Home News.

A scheme in a Brazilian jail allows inmates to cut their sentences in return for generating electricity on an exercise bike.

Freedom is a few kW away for some Brazilian prisoners who can trade pedal powered clean energy for time off their sentences. (Source:Creative Commons/Chris Willis)

The initiative in the Brazilian State of Minas Gerai rewards inmates for charging a battery which is then transported nightly to a riverside promenade in the town of Santa Rita do Sapucai.

Three eight hour sessions on the bikes earns each inmate a day off their sentence.

“We used to spend all day locked up in our cells, only seeing the sun for two hours a day,” Ronaldo da Silva told the Associated Press. “Now we’re out in the fresh air, generating electricity for the town and at the same time we’re winning our freedom.”

Silva is serving a five-and-a-half-year sentence for robbing a bakery and has already trimmed 20 days off his term and 4 kg off his waist.

The four bikes currently installed power 10 lamps along a stretch of the town’s river, but there are plans to add extra so that they can light 34 lamps through the town.

A guard collects the battery at the end of the day and installs it in the lighting system. The project also rewards inmates for reading and taking classes in a range of subjects.

Brazil inmates cycle to freedom by generating… by euronews-en

Related stories

Rio+20: How Maringa in Brazil is empowering communities to embrace sustainable development

Sustainability in the favelas: Swapping guns for gardens

Brazilian diplomat: Rio+20 can open new path to sustainable development

The post Renewable energy helps Brazilian inmates get out of jail appeared first on Climate Home News.

Global investment in clean energy falls short of that needed to meet climate change targets, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.

While 2011 saw global investment in renewables hit a record of $257 billion, the IEA warns that $23.9 trillion will be needed in investments by 2020, and around £140 trillion by 2050 to keep temperature rises below 2°C.

While good progress is being made in onshore wind, offshore wind still lags behind warns report (© Jkavo/Creative Commons)

That means nations will have to spend $36 trillion more than what is currently predicted by 2050 – with China having spent the most.

The report says a host of new technologies are ready to transform energy systems, drastically cut emissions and enhance energy security, as well as offering a huge investment return.

But the IEA warn that the clean energy transformation is not on track to make its require contribution to fighting climate change.

“While our efforts to bring about a clean energy transformation are falling further behind, I want to stress the golden opportunity before us: If significant policy action is taken, we can still achieve the huge potential for these technologies to reduce CO₂ emissions and boost energy security,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.

“Now that we have identified the solution and the host of related benefits, and with the window of opportunity closing fast, when will governments wake up to the dangers of complacency and adopt the bold policies that radically transform our energy system? To do anything less is to deny our societies the welfare they deserve,” she said.

Hydro-power, biomass, onshore wind and solar photovoltaic technologies are all making progress, according to the report.

But technologies the IEA say have the largest potential, such as carbon capture and storage, offshore wind power and concentrated solar power, are showing the least progress and the report warns they are lagging behind what is needed to prevent a rise above 2°C.

Slow take up of energy efficiency measures will also need to be stepped up, says the report.

The report, Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, builds on the IEA’s Tracking Clean Energy Progress report issues in April.

The post IEA: Clean Energy lags behind that needed for two degrees target appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mexico is undergoing a major energy transformation that will see a flurry of investment in wind energy during this decade.

A Walmart funded wind farm in Mexico. (Source: Flickr/Walmart)

The country’s installed wind capacity will grow from 2GW at the end of 2012 to 12 GW by 2020, according to the AMEE, Mexico’s wind energy association.

The UN ranks Mexico as the 11th largest producer of CO2 emissions globally meaning a shift to a cleaner energy supply can have significant consequences for global levels. It currently sources 88.9% of its energy from fossil fuels.

The majority of the new wind farms are planned for the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the narrowest strip of land between the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Gulf of Mexico to the east, where the average wind speed is 25 mph.

According to the country’s government, it could potentially supply 139% of its current electricity demand from wind power.

Last month, Mexico introduced radical new climate change laws that include a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 and a target to source 35% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2024.

The post Mexico embarks on ambitious clean energy roll-out appeared first on Climate Home News.

Desertification is a threat to communities around the world but positive action is taking place to combat it (© UN Photo)

Global action to combat desertification, Antarctic sea-ice being lost from below and women’s role in the green economy; it has been a busy week for climate change news.

RTCC summarises five of the biggest ideas on climate change, energy and clean development that emerged this week…

1) There is positive action being taken on desertification all around the world

This week is Desertification Week at RTCC and it has been a week filled with positive messages. We started with a call from Luc Gnacadja chief of the UNCCD to correct the image we have of desertification as an “unstoppable monster slowly consuming the world’s fertile lands”.

He said there are great examples from the world of positive work being done to combat desertification and this week we have heard such stories from across the globe from Africa to China to Turkey and Iran.

2) Warm oceans are a dominant cause of Antarctic ice melt

New laser images from NASA show that warm oceans thawing ice shelves from below has become a dominant cause of ice loss in Antarctica – showing that the ice melt in the region is not only due to the warming atmosphere.

Organisation aim to find more sustainable sources for biofuels (© Vilseskogen/Flickr)

The researchers believe this new information will take them a step closer to being able to reliably predict potential sea-level rises from ice melt in the Antarctic.

3) There could still be hope for sustainable biofuels

Following renewed criticism over biofuels – and their potential to exacerbate food security threat and human rights abuses – the EU has confirmed its commitment to sourcing 10% of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020.

But as the debate around biofuels shows no signs of slowing down, some organisations are making strides in their attempts to find a more sustainable solution to the problem. While they still have some way to go, they believe they have learnt from past mistakes and are making positive progress.

4) The US could have its first climate change migrants

It appears climate change migration it not a problem isolated to countries in the developing world. While we have heard a lot in recent months about island communities’ plans for relocation and estimates of climate induced movements across Asia and Africa, this week it was the turn of the USA.

The Yup’ik Eskimo village from Newtok, Alaska could have gained the title as America’s first climate change refugees this week as they plan an ambitious relocation nine miles south of the town’s present site, as melting permafrost has literally shifted the ground beneath them.

Twenty-three energy Ministers met this week at the Clean Energy Ministerial in London.

5) India’s electric fans, frozen peas and women hold key to green economy

This week saw the Clean Energy Ministerial in London, where ministers, along with the UN Secretary-General’s Sustainable Energy for All initiative, gave their support for a number of measures to promote energy efficiency and the empowerment of women.

These included programmes targeting super-efficient fans in India, energy efficiency standards for TVs and fridges, and a US-led project to empower women in the clean energy sector.

The post A week in climate change: five things we learnt appeared first on Climate Home News.