Does COP26 achievements reduce global warming?

 

WITHANAGE

This article is based on the FOEI analysis of the COP26 achievements  [Originally posted on January 20,2022]

Climate COP 26 just ended in Glasgow without much participation of the southern communities but with the heavy presence of the fossil lobbyists. According to the media more than 500 attendees from the fossil fuel industry were at the climate summit in Glasgow.

Overall the Glasgow Climate Pact does not get the world on track for keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees, neither delivering the emission cut ambitions from global north countries, nor the finance needed for global south countries to do the same, and allowing for huge loopholes.

The Glasgow Climate Pact ‘recognises’ that 1.5 will require actions including ‘net zero’ by ‘around mid-century’. This isn’t in line with a 1.5 pathway and allows rich countries and corporations to keep polluting for decades, based on the fantasy of balancing out their emissions with offsets, carbon markets and other dangerous distractions. The door has also been opened to Nature Based Solutions for mitigation with a paragraph mentioning them in all but name – the nexus of carbon offsets, nature based solutions and net zero essentially creates a massive escape hatch for developed countries.  

After stalemate on international carbon markets rules for 5 years, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement has been agreed. Article 6 will make the Paris Agreement  operational and “will give certainty and predictability to both market and non-market approaches in support of mitigations as well as adaptation. According to the FOEI, the agreement on carbon markets will likely undermine any chances of staying below the 1.5 degree temperature limit as they are unlikely to reduce emissions and will instead likely act as a smokescreen for continuing or even increasing emissions from burning fossil fuels since the adapted decisions openly allow the use of carbon sinks (plantations, lands and other ecosystem-based sinks in another country) to offset emissions. Carbon markets allows rich countries and corporations off the hook, and it will interplay with weak net zero plans and the now open door to Nature Based Solutions, it will result in land grabbing and human rights abuses in the global South and likely condemns us to exceeding the 1.5-degree threshold.  

Although the Glasgow pact has been celebrated as the first time an explicit mention of phasing out fossil fuels has appeared in UNFCCC text, it allows continued fossil fuel use, only calling for phasing down of “unabated coal power,” leaving open the possibility of coal usage with carbon capture & storage. It also allows for continued fossil fuel subsidies, only calling for phasing down of “inefficient” subsidies.

By focusing only on coal and not including oil and gas, this text disproportionately impacts certain developing countries like China and India. India said in negotiations that all fossil fuels must be phased down, in an equitable manner. This is quite a reasonable response that is supported by a broad coalition of civil society groups.   A globally equitable fossil fuel phase-out is essential for the just, feminist and green transitions that countries need to make.

Leaders made a number of headline-catching announcements but while many of these sounded superficially good, they were often light on detail, with distant targets and little in the way of accountability. They have been described at ‘empty calorie’ announcements. Clearly some are better than others and give scope for further pressure and action, especially the ending fossil fuel finance pledge and the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, but all require scrutiny. A further consideration is that these pledges and announcements often served as a distraction from what was happening within the negotiations themselves, and that some of the key countries announcing things were playing an actively unhelpful role within the talks on the very topics they were claiming credit for in the media.

Leaders representing over 85% of the world’s forests committed to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2030 at COP26, but is was “No more than a rebranding of previous flawed attempts to greenwash increased carbon emissions”

Further, over 190 countries pledges to end all investment in new coal power generation domestically and internationally, rapidly scale up deployment of clean power generation, phase out coal power in economies in the 2030s for major economies and 2040s for the rest of the world and make a just transition away from coal power in a way that benefits workers and communities. Again, this is a recycled announcements.  

39 Countries joined the statements to end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022, except in limited and clearly defined circumstances that are consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit and the goals of the Paris Agreement.  However FoEI state “COP26 end to fossil fuel financing – welcome but hypocritical as action is still missing at home”

45 governments pledge urgent action and investment to protect nature and shift to more sustainable ways of farming.  95 high profile companies from a range of sectors commit to being ‘Nature Positive’, agreeing to work towards halting and reversing the decline of nature by 2030. 

But FOEI says “These schemes are trying to open up vast areas of agriculture, forests and oceans to act as carbon offsets for polluting business as usual. That is completely unacceptable and not what we need to be seeing from COP26. Worse still, many of them are re-packaging false solutions like carbon markets, voluntary certification, and industrial farming as climate action. When these announcements are made, it is always with a view to making the money on offer look like a solution, but really it isn’t.

“Instead, this will unleash more land grabbing, displacement of indigenous peoples and local communities who are the real guardians of biodiversity and providers of climate solutions. The real solutions lie in ending fossil fuel extraction, getting binding regulations to stop deforestation and industrial farming, and instead fund real solutions like agroecology and community management of forests.”

In overall assessment COP 26 was not climate positive but corporate positive. It provided rich nations to pollute further with carbon markets. The civil society opined that we need real Zero at this juncture and no market solutions can abate serious climate catastrophes.

Sri Lanka Energy Crisis

HEMANTHA WITHANAGE 

[Originally posted on January 22,2022]

Energy security is one of the fundamental requirements for a country. Meanwhile having sovereign energy sources is utmost important. However, this was ignored by all the regimes in the past.

In January 2022, it was announced that Sri Lanka has no foreign reserves to purchase coal for the Norochcholai coal power plant. Power Ministry also don’t have money to purchase diesel and furnace oil for the thermal power plants. Immediate result is shorter power cuts across the country. Gasoline and diesel for the vehicles also follow the same fate. This means that Sri Lanka has lost its energy security in 2022.

Meanwhile several accidents related to LPG gas leaks occurred during the past 2 months are due to the change of the prophane and butane formula to make more profits for Litro gas. Unfortunately, few people already died, and many people spend hours in the queues to find safer gas tanks.

In 2019, President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa set the tone in his “Vistas of  Prosperity and splendor” produced to achieve 80% renewable by 2030. The national budget- 2020 brought down the target to 70%. However, CEB’s long-term generation plan can  meet only about 45% of Sri Lanka’s renewable electricity by 2030. This is because majority CEB engineers still believe on combustion sources such as coal and liquid gas. Meantime Sustainable Energy Authority so far has failed to meet the necessary speed to meet the target.  

Some people think LNG as the transition fuel. It is not true. It’s another fossil-based source. Responding to the peoples demand to meet the climate targets, G8 countries and the multilateral banks recently decide to cut their support to coal expansion. China also joined them in September 2021. Therefore, LNG prices are soaring in the region. Yet, Sri Lanka is still interested in promoting 900 MW LNG plants in the coming years.

At present, compared to the price of electricity generated in Sri Lanka, it costs more than 20 rupees to produce one unit of electricity from coal and about 17 rupees per unit to produce liquefied natural gas. But a unit of wind power, which is a renewable energy system, costs only about 9 rupees. Solar power can generate electricity for as little as 8 rupees. The 100 MW Mannar Wind Power Plant, built with the assistance of the Asian Development Bank, is currently generating wind power at a cost of Rs. 7/unit.

We must not forget that not all renewables are green. But, Mannar wind project shows how to make renewables greener. Fifty-six towers were to be erected when the power plant began, but due to protests from the Centre for Environmental Justice and other environmentalists, it was brough down to 30 turbines only. The environmental report  said that the plant could kill 10% of the pelicans and destructive to birds annually migrate from Europe to Sri Lanka. As a  solution an emergency radar system  was installed as a pilot project in the region to shut down the turbines to stop bird collision. It monitors the birds from a distance of up to 12 km and the movement of birds up to 400 meters in height. Even if the power plant is equipped with such high technology, it can produce clean wind power at around Rs. 7 per unit. We are yet to see the effectiveness of the Radar system.

But precariously Indian Adani corporation has now approached Sri Lanka to build another 500 MW capacity of wind turbines across Mannar which will be detrimental to the bird migration. Although this wind project is scheduled for 2030, they might speed up the approval process citing the current crisis.

Small hydro power plants in Sri Lanka also cause great environmental damage. The reason for this is that the power plants are being operated without proper environmental assessment and supervision. The Centre for Environmental Justice took legal actions to regulate the situation by requesting a Strategic Environmental Assessment for small hydro power plants. Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority initially gave consent but later withdrew.

Not only Sri Lanka but the whole world is currently facing a serious crisis due to climate change. There is no escape for Sri Lanka from that crisis as an island nation. According to the 2017 International Climate Change Index, Sri Lanka was ranked as the  second country in the world affected by climate change. In 2018, Sri Lanka was ranked sixth in the index.  

In 2016, Sri Lanka submitted its NDC in accordance with the Paris Agreement signed in2015. Accordingly, it pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 4% and to reduce carbon emissions by 16% through all other activities. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka dishonour these promises when they propose LNG plants in Muthurajawela and a coal power plant in Puttalam.

According to the plan, the fourth coal power plant adjacent to the Norochcholai Lakvijaya power plant will generate 300 megawatts by 2023. Another 300 megawatts from natural gas in the same year and 300 megawatts in 2024 and 2025. It is also proposed to set up a 600 MW coal power plant in Trincomalee by 2026. And after 2030, coal and liquefied natural gas power plants will generate more than 3,000 megawatts of electricity until 2039. Therefore, CEB plan is undoubtedly a very  destructive long-term plan. However, in mid-January  2022, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa announced no more coal plants will be built.

Yet, increased burning of firewood will add further emission to the atmosphere. While indoor pollution is an immediate crisis, its climate contribution is also a serious issues begin with the gas shortage.

The latest IPC report state it is not possible to avoid temperature rise to 3 degrees Celsius. If we are to utilize the remaining carbon budget, all developed countries must be carbon-zero by 2030, if global temperatures are not to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius to manage catastrophic climate change the world is currently facing. And all the countries in the world, big and small, must be carbon zero by 2050.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka Electricity Board has so far not taken adequate measures to honor the targets set by the President. It is unfortunate that this corrupt system has jeopardized the national energy security which will lead to many other crises. In my view, other than immediate social and economic difficulties, current economic crisis in Sri Lanka will delay achieving NDC targets, increase forest destruction and increase unaccounted carbon emissions in the immediate future. (END)