Biden’s COP pledge+ Germany withdr • Table.Briefings

Dear reader,

As the world’s wealthiest country, the main culprit behind the climate crisis and a self-proclaimed global leader, the United States bears a key role in the fight against climate change. So it was eagerly awaited what the US president would bring with him to Egypt. But Joe Biden lived up to expectations on Friday at COP with big words at best. What Biden forgot to bring was a leadership vision, analyzes Bernhard Pötter – and he identifies twelve home-grown obstacles for Biden’s climate plans.

Meanwhile, the Global Carbon Budget Report shows that carbon emissions from fossil fuels have risen again globally. For coal, new calculations even indicate a new all-time high. But we do not want to send you into the second COP week without some hope. In today’s interview, economists Jan Steckel and Michael Jakob explain why the global coal phase-out is definitely coming – and what measures make sense. The two scientists have spent years studying the coal policies of different countries. And they are cautiously optimistic.

Tomorrow, Sunday, the COP negotiators – and we – take a little breather. You will find the next issue of Climate.Table in your mailbox on Monday morning.

Your
Nico Beckert

A leader who does not lead

By

Bernhard Pötter

The claim is huge: “The United States as a trustworthy, committed, global leader on climate,” said US President Joe Biden on Friday evening in his speech at COP27. Three days after the other world leaders, Biden arrived at the climate conference to speak on a matter that has been on his mind for “36 years”: The fight against the climate crisis. And the best way to do that is under the wing of the US leadership.

However, it is often quite lacking. And while Biden’s speech in Sharm el-Sheikh praised a major success at home, the Inflation Reduction Act, and its nearly $370 billion in investment projects, the rest of the speech was more a summary of half-baked or missed goals. While the Biden administration was “pulling out all the stops at home, internationally it is falling short of all expectations,” according to the think tank World Resource Institute.

No new beginnings, no vision from Joe Biden

A new beginning, a leadership vision, was not discernible in Biden’s speech. And that was not only because the 79-year-old seemed tired and had some problems finding the right words.

Aside from the already-known bang of the IRA package, Biden did lay out some new promises:

the US will double its contribution to the UN Adaptation Fund to 100 million dollars.
150 million dollars are earmarked for “Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE) efforts across Africa”.
2 billion dollars are to flow into “solar projects” in Angola
Biden promised to ensure that the United States would pay a total of 11.4 billion in climate finance by 2024, including 3 billion for adaptation. How Biden plans to achieve that is still unclear. So far, the US has provided 8 billion – which is a far cry from a “fair share” of 40 billion.
Together with Germany, the US signs a 500-million-dollar project with Egypt aimed at promoting 10 gigawatts of renewables that will save gas (see News).
the US is committed to preventing nearly 90 percent of all methane emissions by 2030. This is to fulfill the US part of the “Global Methane Pledge” of cutting emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

Biden offers no solution on climate finances

However, Biden had little to say about the big issues at COP27, which will determine whether the conference is a failure or a success next week. The controversial issue of finance will not be settled with his announcements. Just the day before, his climate envoy John Kerry drew criticism for his new proposal: Carbon credits for US companies on the voluntary carbon market are intended to advance the energy transition in emerging economies – but the plan conflicts with new UN anti-greenwashing rules (Climate.Table reported).

Shortly before, a study by a group of experts found out how great the financial needs are: Up to one trillion dollars a year for energy transition, adaptation and nature conservation in order to fulfill the Paris Agreement. Not a word from Biden on changes to the financial system, as demanded by the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Motley, not a word on new financing models, for example from the excess profits of fossil fuel companies, restructuring of the World Bank and IMF or levies on air and shipping traffic.

Biden also remained vague on the subject of carbon reduction. He claims the United States is on track to meet its National Climate Change Plan (NDC). It calls for a 50 to 52 percent reduction in emissions between 2005 and 2030. However, previous calculations estimate a maximum cut of 44 percent under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Still, the US is at least once again represented at the climate conference by the government’s leader. The US President used his trip to the G20 meeting in Bali for a brief touchdown in the desert. Shortly before, he spoke with China’s President Xi. The two plan to speak with each other in Indonesia – and perhaps resume the suspended climate dialogue.

“It is a good signal that the US president came to the conference,” commented German Development Secretary Jochen Flasbarth on Biden’s visit. This showed that the climate crisis was not forgotten amid all the other crises, he said.

But self-proclaimed leadership involves more than just showing up.

12 reasons Biden has little power over climate policy

Vice President Al Gore in 1997 at COP3 in Kyoto: Climate agreement negotiated but defeated at home in the Senate.

By

Bernhard Pötter

Political hurdles: parliament, party politics

The US Constitution stipulates that important levers for climate policy do not rest in the hands of the president: The House of Representatives sets the federal government’s budget. With a majority in the chamber, the opposing Republicans can block the promised climate funds. US climate envoy John Kerry already warned about this. This is one reason why the US only contributes just under eight billion dollars to international climate financing – a fair share would probably be around 40 billion.
The US Senate must ratify all international treaties. If the president does not hold a majority there, he will not succeed – and even if his party holds a majority, success is not guaranteed. That is why the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. One consequence of this was that the Paris Agreement was designed in such a way that it did not impose any direct obligations on any member country – and this was primarily because of the USA.
When it comes to climate protection, the USA is divided along party-political lines: While supporters of the Democrats are largely in favor of climate protection measures, most Republicans reject them. Many Republicans also deny climate change outright.
The White House holds little power over “secondary foreign policy,” which can also have an impact on climate: When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August, China shelved all climate talks with the United States.

Powerful fossil fuel corporations and states, bloodletting in government agencies

The influence of fossil fuel corporations on federal and US state policy is strong. For decades, an entire PR industry, with its “merchants of doubt,” has been making sure that climate policy does not threaten their short-term economic interests. Rex Tillerson, head of US oil giant ExxonMobil, served as U.S. Secretary of State under Donald Trump from 2017 to 2018 – and was also responsible for climate policy.
The Trump years have significantly weakened US climate policy. Many experts from the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) left government service or were fired.
The decentralized political system in the US guarantees individual (fossil-fuel dominated) states considerable influence: One single Democratic senator, Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia, had slowed down Joe Biden’s climate course for a long time.
On the other hand, this grassroots structure also helps to prevent a total climate clean sweep when there is a change of power in Washington. When President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement in 2017, states, businesses, environmental groups, and foundations banded together to form the “We Are Still In” initiative to still meet the goals of the agreement.

Economic pressure is high

Economic pressures are more important than political decisions. Unlike EU countries, for example, the US relies less on detailed regulation. Instead, it favors quotas, tax breaks and technical innovation. The decline in US emissions in recent years is less the result of targeted policies than of the success of cheap fracking gas, which replaced coal. And just how the 369 billion dollars in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will impact national and international climate policy is unclear. Experts calculate that it will cut carbon emissions by 31 to 44 percent by 2030 – a far cry from the 50 to 52 percent in the US National Climate Action Plan (NDC).
The current high inflation makes higher gas prices unpopular. In any case, the dependence of the USA on cars and airplanes limits the political leeway for fiscal measures, while the damage caused by climate change fuels inflation.
The US is traditionally critical of state intervention. Many people consider taxes to be an unacceptable curtailment of freedom. Carbon pricing and emissions trading for the industry exist in only 15 of 50 states.

Environment and climate hardly play a role in geopolitics

In US geopolitics, environmental and climate issues tend to take a back seat to other interests. The interests in the Persian Gulf, for example, are centered on the petro-states in the region. Many also see the conflict with China as a conflict over the markets for renewable energies – which China currently dominates.

‘The global coal phase-out will definitely happen’

Mr. Jakob, Mr. Steckel, you have spent five years researching the “political economy of coal” in almost 20 countries worldwide. When and how will the coal phase-out happen?

Steckel: That is very specific to the individual countries. But because we apply similar standards everywhere, we already see recurring things: Some major barriers are the same in many countries, so it almost doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about Germany, Vietnam, or Indonesia. For example, it is very important to understand the regional actors and to take their interests seriously.

When it comes to the coal phase-out, it is often said that the price will settle it. Is that true?

Jakob: It gets difficult whenever strong interest groups oppose carbon pricing and when there are hidden coal subsidies. Then you need other instruments. Vietnam is a good example: If there hadn’t been extra hidden subsidies for coal, cheap renewables would have pushed coal out of the market. After all, many people earn money with coal, from the construction of power plants, the transport of fuel, and the removal of ash.

S: There is one common element: It works in liberalized electricity markets. If rising prices for coal, for example through carbon allowances, are passed on to the customer, like in Germany, the USA, or the UK, then coal will also leave the market very fast, much faster than expected. In the US, coal has virtually lost its relevance in the last decade because of cheaper alternatives, especially gas, without any political consensus on phasing it out.

But if renewables are becoming cheaper almost everywhere, why is there still so much coal?

S: There are economic reasons, we just don’t have them on our radar. There’s more to industrialization than just electricity, there is infrastructure and the education level of the population. Coal has many starting points. Our research also shows: Where coal-fired power plants are built, structural change and faster economic development have occurred.

But are renewables not simply cheaper?

S: That, too, is such a double-edged matter. In Germany, we have recently been calculating two percent interest for the financing of such projects. But Indonesia and Vietnam calculate up to 15 percent for such investments. What’s more, the capital for renewables has to be on the table right at the start, which is different from coal. And it’s harder to get loans for renewables because of the higher risk. In many countries, coal-fired power plants are guaranteed for 20 years, while renewables are only guaranteed for one year in some countries. Of course, that scares off investors.

So depending on how the market is designed, it may be economically sound to build coal-fired power plants even if renewables are cheaper?

J: For the individual players, definitely. But these framework conditions are not a natural constant, they are politically made and desired. The interest rate for renewables is so high because political decisions favor coal.

S: The market design depends on which technology dominates. The decision-makers are not all stupid or corrupt, nor do they deny climate change. But they often say: You can’t guarantee us that renewables will really work as well as coal with our technical, administrative, and institutional realities! Moreover, they are more expensive at first: A renewable grid needs more capacity and more storage, which are additional investments. Such reservations need to be taken seriously.

You also have to see whether the technical and institutional foundation for a renewable energy system exists. We have a large service industry that develops software, for example, that calculates with an accuracy of two meters where the wind will blow in 15, 30, or 60 minutes. For us, that’s trivial, but for a country like Vietnam, it’s a lot more difficult. And on top of that, many countries are worried that renewable energy technology will put them back into dependencies they don’t want.

Given the situation, doesn’t that make you despair?

S: What gives me hope is that we have understood the problem and can now work to solve it. In many countries, introducing an effective carbon price is not that easy, so we have to work on other things. We can feed this knowledge into the political process. For example, that is really exciting in Vietnam: As soon as the restriction that the purchase of renewable electricity could only be guaranteed for one year was lifted, there was a huge boom and billions in investments. To the point that the government had to stop it again because the grids couldn’t handle it. But now the government plans are being rewritten. So we see: the forces of inertia are strong, but something is changing – and we can explain why. That’s not frustrating, it gives hope.

The Ukraine war has shaken up global energy policy. What does this mean for the coal phase-out?

S. That is completely uncertain. Bangladesh, for example, had big coal plans that were subsequently scrapped. Justification: We are building LNG terminals to import liquefied natural gas. No one can say what will become of it now that LNG has become so expensive because of Europe’s demand. Countries in South and Southeast Asia in particular are in a tight spot: There are no ships because they are now transporting gas to Europe. This creates the threat of a renaissance of coal. On the other hand, there is a firewall, namely no more public funding for coal, that was decided at the COP in Glasgow, China also says that.

J: Not only has gas become more expensive, but coal prices have also risen. I can imagine that there is also a strong push towards more renewables.

S: There is another concern: That the expansion of energy grids in poorer countries will stop. That there will be less development, less industrialization, more energy poverty and more poverty in general.

Those who plan to phase out coal, what can they learn from your book?

J: First of all, that the conditions are different in the different groups: Where the phase-out is already taking place, as in many old industrialized countries, market-based instruments such as the carbon price are very important, the promotion of renewables and compensation for affected population groups.

S: In countries where coal is well established, such as China and India, it is important to change and liberalize the energy market. These are big tasks. For countries that are considering a phase-out, it is essential to lower the risk: de-risking, combined with offers to go straight into renewables. This requires lowering capital hurdles for the expansion of renewables: This means granting loans at 2 percent instead of the current 15 percent, and not just for the individual wind farm, but for the entire system. Or you could say: If you build a fossil system, you need 100 GW, if you build a renewable one, more, maybe 150 GW – so we will fund the additional 50 GW for you.

What about the countries that generate a large part of their government revenues by exporting coal?

S: They need cash transfers at different levels. A “just transition” in these countries, that is, for the affected groups. But also internationally, you have to realize: How do you buy out groups that own the coal and skim the profits from it? That’s an unpleasant question, but it has to be faced. An offer will have to be made to the coal barons in Indonesia, for example. This is a network of old military men who are still sitting at the helm of the ministries. They have to be offered a way to earn money from renewables when coal is phased out.

You have spent three years on this project. Have you become more optimistic or more pessimistic?

J: More optimistic, albeit at a very low level. The global coal phase-out will definitely happen. The question is how long it will take. Above all, we need to prevent countries from reinvesting in coal. Many countries in Africa wanted to go into coal and are now going more into renewables.

S: Many people were disappointed that no global coal phase-out was agreed upon at COP26 in Glasgow. But China no longer finances foreign coal projects, there are initiatives to help countries like South Africa to phase out, or to buy power plants with public money and then decommission them. If the right course is set, the phase-out can happen quickly, our data shows. That also makes me optimistic. It is always said that coal-fired power plants built today are stranded investments. Why is that? We often hear: After six years, these projects will turn a profit. Then shutting them down early, for example after 10 or 20 years instead of 40, might not be so dramatic. If that happens, coal and climate protection will still succeed.

Michael Jakob is a Senior Fellow at Ecologic Institute and Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Berlin.

Jan C. Steckel heads the Climate and Development Working Group at MCC and is Chair of the Climate and Development Economics Department at Brandenburg Technical University BTU in Cottbus.

Jakob/Steckel (ed.): “The Political Economy of Coal – Obstacles to Clean Energy Transitions”, Routledge, London and New York, 2022

Study: Global carbon emissions on the rise again

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels are expected to rise by about one percent this year. After a Covid-related decline, total carbon emissions are now slightly above pre-COVID-19 levels, with minimal increases since 2015 but an uncertain trend, according to the Global Carbon Budget report published on Friday.

The rising carbon emissions would complicate the world’s ability to prevent catastrophic levels of climate change, the authors said. To reach net-zero emissions by 2050, global carbon emissions would have to fall by 1.4 gigatons per year – comparable to the Covid-related decline in 2020.

Carbon emissions from fossil fuels varied from country to country:

China is expected to emit 0.9 percent less carbon, the Covid pandemic, the expansion of renewables, and the housing crisis are believed to be the causes (Climate.Table reported)
The US emitted 1.5 percent more carbon than the previous year
India’s emissions increased by 6 percent
Emissions from the EU dropped by 0.8 percent.

More coal and oil consumed

The report by more than 100 scientists predicts that countries will emit a total of 41 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2022:

37 billion metric tons through the burning of fossil fuels
four billion metric tons from land use, such as deforestation.

The largest increase will stem from:

increased oil consumption after the Covid pandemic, especially in the transportation and aviation sectors
Higher coal demand as a result of the Ukraine war and gas shortages. nib

Germany withdraws from Energy Charter

The government coalition has long delayed its decision. Yesterday it became clear: Germany will withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The agreement, which was signed in the 1990s, allows investors to sue states before private arbitration courts if their plants and investments are at risk, for example due to stricter climate laws. The Swedish company Vattenfall, for example, sued Germany for billions in damages due to the accelerated nuclear phase-out.

On November 22, the ECT states will vote on the reform of the charter in Mongolia. But many EU states see this reform as failed: Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and most recently France have already announced their withdrawal from the treaty. Italy had already left in 2015. According to the Munich Environment Institute, the reformed ECT would also violate current European law.

Germany sees the exit as a step forward in its trade agenda: “By withdrawing from the Energy Charter, we are opening a new chapter to ensure that trade agreements cannot be used to shackle progress and public welfare-oriented policies,” said Verena Hubertz, Deputy Chair of the SPD parliamentary group.

“It’s an important signal to the Commission: now the EU must also prepare its withdrawal!” demands Green MEP Anna Cavazzini on Twitter. How the EU will position itself on the controversial text is not yet clear. On Wednesday, the Energy Charter is on the agenda of the Permanent Representatives Committee. Next Friday, a formal vote will be held in the General Affairs Council (GAC). The fact that Germany wants to withdraw from the treaty does not necessarily mean that Berlin will also push for a rejection of the ECT reform in the Council: France, for example, is expected to vote in favor of the reform in the Council even though it plans to withdraw from the Energy Charter. Charlotte Wirth

Weak methane declaration – UN puts pressure with database

The US, EU, Canada, Japan and other countries want to “take immediate action” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel production. This is according to a joint statement released by the countries on Friday. The statement targets “methane emissions in particular.” The states reaffirm the Global Methane Pledge agreed in Glasgow, which calls for cutting methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

The joint statement by the states remained rather vague. However, individual states announced the following measures:

On Friday, US President Biden presented an update on the methane emissions reduction action plan of the United States. The plan includes more than 20 billion dollars in new investments to reduce methane emissions, the White House announced.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday expanded a plan to limit methane emissions from oil and gas drilling after environmentalists criticized it as insufficient. However, the plan is not expected to be finalized until next year, Bloomberg reports.
Canada aims to reduce methane emissions by 75 percent by 2030 compared to 2012 levels, according to a government proposal. It would mark the “most comprehensive and most effective set of methane standards anywhere in the world,” Jonathan Banks of the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force told Bloomberg.

Criticism of EU methane regulation

European civil society criticized the joint declaration by states as nothing new. The methane declaration was criticized as “a toothless instrument,” by CAN Europe, Food and Water Action Europe and Deutsche Umwelthilfe:

the declaration is not legally binding,
the EU will not go beyond its plans in the EU Methane Regulation, which is currently negotiated in Parliament and the Council.

The EU methane regulation does not cover methane emissions from imported fossil fuels. But according to the three organizations, 75 to 90 percent of European methane emissions originate along the supply chain, i.e. during the extraction and transport of raw materials.

UN plans to hold companies and governments accountable

Meanwhile, the UNEP announced a public database of global methane leaks at COP27. The so-called Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) will use an existing network of space satellites to track methane plumes around the globe. This will help identify the size of the methane leaks and the company or government responsible, UNEP said. The data will be shared with those responsible to ensure the leak is repaired as quickly as possible.

After 45 to 75 days, the information will be made public – as well as responses from governments or companies to UN notices about methane leaks. This could create public pressure on those responsible to act more quickly. The system will initially be limited to the oil and gas sector, but will gradually be expanded to include the coal, waste and agricultural sectors.

Methane has a much stronger warming effect than carbon dioxide during its short lifetime and is responsible for about a quarter of the global temperature rise so far, scientists say. nib/rtr

Laurence Tubiana: Do not give up on 1.5-degree target

Not much attention has been paid to more ambitious climate targets at COP27 so far. This is what Laurence Tubiana, French negotiator of the Paris climate summit and current president of the European Climate Foundation, told Climate.Table.

Delegations at COP26 in Glasgow originally agreed that all countries would present more ambitious climate targets for 2030 during the year to close the current gap to the 1.5-degree target. But few actually delivered. Tubiana expressed hope that “a new cycle of ambitious climate targets” would now be kicked off during the Sharm el-Sheikh negotiations.

The diplomat urged not to abandon the 1.5-degree target. Some countries would like to see that happen, she said. “I don’t think we should do that. Even though it is very likely that we will temporarily break the target. We should keep it.”

For ten percent tax on oil and gas

Tubiana also supports Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley’s proposals for reforming the global financial system. Mottley already presented her “Bridgetown Agenda” at the United Nations General Assembly in September and now continues to campaign for support at COP27.

Climate financing, including for “loss and damage,” is a central theme at the summit. Mottley’s agenda essentially calls for reform of the international financial system to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis on particularly vulnerable countries. A central element is special drawing rights at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which would allow member countries to take out loans at low interest rates. In addition, multilateral development banks should provide more money than before for climate change adaptation, as well as new financial instruments for decarbonization and a financial mechanism for rebuilding efforts after climate disasters.

Mottley also called for a tax on the profits of oil and gas companies – a demand echoed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “How do companies make 200 billion dollars in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss and damage fund?” asked Mottley at COP. France’s President Emmanuel Macron also supports Mottley’s plans.

Oil exporters ‘will resist to the end’

The climate summit itself will not decide on the Bridgetown Agenda, Tubiana said. But in the final texts, there could at least be “references to some of its demands.” “The ten percent tax on oil and gas that Mottley is proposing I would like to see come to fruition,” Tubiana continued. “But I don’t think we’re going to get it.” Oil-exporting countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are still very influential in the negotiations “and will resist to the end.”

China should pay for loss and damage

One of the questions in the negotiations is: Should countries like China also pay for “loss and damage”? “Of course,” says Tubiana. “China is a big emitter. It has released a lot of emissions into the atmosphere over time, so it should pay, especially to the most affected countries.” But to make progress in the negotiations, all G20 countries would have to move toward “loss and damage,” the diplomat said. “And, of course, very much on the G7 side as well.”

By the end of the negotiations, things “will not likely have been decided as detailed as it needs to be,” but “if we had a list of things that needed to be considered to resolve loss and damage financing, that would be good enough.” Details would then have to be developed further after the summit, for example, at the next meetings of the World Bank and IMF. ae

Egypt: 42 percent renewables by 2030

Egypt wants to expand renewable energies more quickly and will receive financial help from Germany and the United States. This was announced by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment on Friday after a round of trilateral talks between the governments involved. Egypt wants to increase the share of renewable energies from the current 11 percent to 42 percent by 2030. Previously, Egypt had planned to reach this goal only by 2035. A key component of the plan is to include the decommissioning of at least twelve gas-fired power plants with a total capacity of 5 gigawatts.

The political statement also indicates that Egypt plans to implement several initiatives to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas production and waste management, boost the development of wind and solar energy, and mitigate emissions from the transport sector. The plans are to be reflected in a revised Egypt National Climate Change Contribution (NDC) by June 2023. Egypt’s current NDC calls for emissions to increase by 2030 (Climate.Table reported).

Germany will support this initiative with more than 250 million euros. According to the environment ministry, the funding, which will come from the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, includes 50 million euros in grants, 100 million euros in low-interest loans and a debt conversion of 100 million euros. Part of the proceeds from the debt conversion will be invested in a socially just transition for people affected by the closure of the old gas-fired power plants.

Commenting on the trilateral agreement at COP on Friday, Jennifer Morgan, Special Envoy for International Climate Action at the Federal Foreign Office, said the agreement also showed “that we are not only during negotiations in Sharm el-Sheikh, but also through very concrete agreements, committed to ensuring that the global expansion of solar and wind energy receives a boost at COP.” asi

Why the decisions at COP27 can save lives

By Carol Devine and Elisa de Siqueira

Carol Devine (left) and Elisa de Siqueira, climate experts with Doctors Without Borders.

“Water is crucial for humanity. We are suffering when it comes to water. We can’t find potable water, and it’s not available to the whole population. It’s very difficult. So, we want them to learn about this so they can help us.”

This is what our colleague Souat Ahmat Ramadarie, a midwife from Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) in Chad, told us, when we asked her what she would tell people around the world about the humanitarian situation in the country.

Water: a matter of life and death in Chad

Soaut lives and works in Sila, in the Southeast of the country where water is a subject of life and death. Chad is extremely vulnerable to the climate crisis and has very low readiness to improve its resilience.

The population faces the multiple health affects of rising temperatures, erratic rainfalls and increasing desertification which results in reduced farming and pasture areas and displacement. Water and food insecurity are interlinked and amplified due to human-induced climate change and environmental degradation.

In Sila, MSF works closely with communities on a sustainable community healthcare system. Also, MSF runs an emergency response for growing child malnutrition in Chad.

Chad is one country of 70 where MSF works, and Souat is one colleague of over 65,000 colleagues in our global movement delivering independent medical humanitarian assistance based on need. As health providers responding to the consequences of climate change for many at-risk populations, it is also our duty to advocate for and with the people we serve.

Floods and malaria in South Sudan

As such, at COP27 and beyond we are also spotlighting the ‘four-year’ floods in South Sudan:

extremely concerning malaria rates
severe food security problems
loss of livestock,
lack of safe drinking water,
outbreaks of water-borne diseases, and
hundreds of thousands of people displaced

We try to respond to needs in preparing for the next malaria peak, through our pilot Malaria Anticipation Project in Lankien.

Hurricanes damage clinics

We are speaking about Madagascar which suffered multiple cyclones in 2022 and is facing regular extreme weather events. There we are supporting the reconstruction of a damaged hospital and health centers and running clinics by boat in places where people have had very limited access to healthcare after the cyclones. We are treating hundreds of patients a week for malaria, diarrheoa and respiratory tract infections as well as now treating acute malnutrition in children.

Like Soaut, we want people globally to know about what fellow humans are experiencing in Chad, in Madagascar and South Sudan and many other countries, as a consequence of the climate crisis.

Demands for COP: more resources for health protection

Our demands are based on what we know and see in our daily operations include::

COP27 must deliver on its commitments: major emitters must increase their ambitions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Keeping global warming under 1.5 °C is critical to avoid the worst health and humanitarian effects of climate change. Every fraction of warming averted reduces death and suffering.
COP27 must deliver to support health protection and promotion in less resilient and disproportionally affected countries. This includes resources to adapt health systems and the capacity for countries and communities to respond to health impacts from the climate crisis. Without more ambitious and urgent adaptation, humanitarian needs will grow beyond what MSF and other aid organizations will be able to deal with.
COP27 must deliver adequate funding for loss and damages. All climate finance must be new and additional, not a money shuffle or double counted. Humanitarian organizations are seriously overstretched. Humanitarian assistance is already severely underfunded and existing funding must be protected. Commitments must be delivered transparently, ensuring adequate funding for loss and damage, for mitigation and adaptation.

How climate protection promotes health

We need to see climate action that matches the scale of the climate emergency. This action needs to include solutions to safeguard human health. Ambitious climate action has several health, economic and social co-benefits.

The cleaning of groundwater sources leads to clean drinking water,
which in turn reduces diarrheal diseases and the spread of mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.
Phasing out fossil fuels also leads to better air.
This ensures that there are fewer respiratory diseases.
A more ecological and sustainable agriculture also enables a healthier diet.

As health and humanitarian actors, we know from experience the importance of centering voices of affected populations in response strategies to best meet their needs.

We as medical humanitarians are at COP27 because decisions made here have significant implications for the people and communities we serve. It is important for all of us. It is life-saving for Soaut, the babies and mothers she helps, and countless other people today and in the future.

Carol Devine is Lead Humanitarian Action on Climate and Environment at Doctors Without Borders. Elisa de Siqueira is Humanitarian Advocacy Officer Climate Crisis at MSF Germany.

EDITORIAL CLIMATE.TABLE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Nico
Beckert

Lisa
Kuner

Christiane
Kühl

Manuel
Berkel

Lukas
Knigge

Dear reader,

As the world’s wealthiest country, the main culprit behind the climate crisis and a self-proclaimed global leader, the United States bears a key role in the fight against climate change. So it was eagerly awaited what the US president would bring with him to Egypt. But Joe Biden lived up to expectations on Friday at COP with big words at best. What Biden forgot to bring was a leadership vision, analyzes Bernhard Pötter – and he identifies twelve home-grown obstacles for Biden’s climate plans.

Meanwhile, the Global Carbon Budget Report shows that carbon emissions from fossil fuels have risen again globally. For coal, new calculations even indicate a new all-time high. But we do not want to send you into the second COP week without some hope. In today’s interview, economists Jan Steckel and Michael Jakob explain why the global coal phase-out is definitely coming – and what measures make sense. The two scientists have spent years studying the coal policies of different countries. And they are cautiously optimistic.

Tomorrow, Sunday, the COP negotiators – and we – take a little breather. You will find the next issue of Climate.Table in your mailbox on Monday morning.

Your
Nico Beckert

A leader who does not lead

By

Bernhard Pötter

The claim is huge: “The United States as a trustworthy, committed, global leader on climate,” said US President Joe Biden on Friday evening in his speech at COP27. Three days after the other world leaders, Biden arrived at the climate conference to speak on a matter that has been on his mind for “36 years”: The fight against the climate crisis. And the best way to do that is under the wing of the US leadership.

However, it is often quite lacking. And while Biden’s speech in Sharm el-Sheikh praised a major success at home, the Inflation Reduction Act, and its nearly $370 billion in investment projects, the rest of the speech was more a summary of half-baked or missed goals. While the Biden administration was “pulling out all the stops at home, internationally it is falling short of all expectations,” according to the think tank World Resource Institute.

No new beginnings, no vision from Joe Biden

A new beginning, a leadership vision, was not discernible in Biden’s speech. And that was not only because the 79-year-old seemed tired and had some problems finding the right words.

Aside from the already-known bang of the IRA package, Biden did lay out some new promises:

the US will double its contribution to the UN Adaptation Fund to 100 million dollars.
150 million dollars are earmarked for “Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE) efforts across Africa”.
2 billion dollars are to flow into “solar projects” in Angola
Biden promised to ensure that the United States would pay a total of 11.4 billion in climate finance by 2024, including 3 billion for adaptation. How Biden plans to achieve that is still unclear. So far, the US has provided 8 billion – which is a far cry from a “fair share” of 40 billion.
Together with Germany, the US signs a 500-million-dollar project with Egypt aimed at promoting 10 gigawatts of renewables that will save gas (see News).
the US is committed to preventing nearly 90 percent of all methane emissions by 2030. This is to fulfill the US part of the “Global Methane Pledge” of cutting emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

Biden offers no solution on climate finances

However, Biden had little to say about the big issues at COP27, which will determine whether the conference is a failure or a success next week. The controversial issue of finance will not be settled with his announcements. Just the day before, his climate envoy John Kerry drew criticism for his new proposal: Carbon credits for US companies on the voluntary carbon market are intended to advance the energy transition in emerging economies – but the plan conflicts with new UN anti-greenwashing rules (Climate.Table reported).

Shortly before, a study by a group of experts found out how great the financial needs are: Up to one trillion dollars a year for energy transition, adaptation and nature conservation in order to fulfill the Paris Agreement. Not a word from Biden on changes to the financial system, as demanded by the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Motley, not a word on new financing models, for example from the excess profits of fossil fuel companies, restructuring of the World Bank and IMF or levies on air and shipping traffic.

Biden also remained vague on the subject of carbon reduction. He claims the United States is on track to meet its National Climate Change Plan (NDC). It calls for a 50 to 52 percent reduction in emissions between 2005 and 2030. However, previous calculations estimate a maximum cut of 44 percent under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Still, the US is at least once again represented at the climate conference by the government’s leader. The US President used his trip to the G20 meeting in Bali for a brief touchdown in the desert. Shortly before, he spoke with China’s President Xi. The two plan to speak with each other in Indonesia – and perhaps resume the suspended climate dialogue.

“It is a good signal that the US president came to the conference,” commented German Development Secretary Jochen Flasbarth on Biden’s visit. This showed that the climate crisis was not forgotten amid all the other crises, he said.

But self-proclaimed leadership involves more than just showing up.

12 reasons Biden has little power over climate policy

By

Bernhard Pötter

Political hurdles: parliament, party politics

The US Constitution stipulates that important levers for climate policy do not rest in the hands of the president: The House of Representatives sets the federal government’s budget. With a majority in the chamber, the opposing Republicans can block the promised climate funds. US climate envoy John Kerry already warned about this. This is one reason why the US only contributes just under eight billion dollars to international climate financing – a fair share would probably be around 40 billion.
The US Senate must ratify all international treaties. If the president does not hold a majority there, he will not succeed – and even if his party holds a majority, success is not guaranteed. That is why the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. One consequence of this was that the Paris Agreement was designed in such a way that it did not impose any direct obligations on any member country – and this was primarily because of the USA.
When it comes to climate protection, the USA is divided along party-political lines: While supporters of the Democrats are largely in favor of climate protection measures, most Republicans reject them. Many Republicans also deny climate change outright.
The White House holds little power over “secondary foreign policy,” which can also have an impact on climate: When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August, China shelved all climate talks with the United States.

Powerful fossil fuel corporations and states, bloodletting in government agencies

The influence of fossil fuel corporations on federal and US state policy is strong. For decades, an entire PR industry, with its “merchants of doubt,” has been making sure that climate policy does not threaten their short-term economic interests. Rex Tillerson, head of US oil giant ExxonMobil, served as U.S. Secretary of State under Donald Trump from 2017 to 2018 – and was also responsible for climate policy.
The Trump years have significantly weakened US climate policy. Many experts from the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) left government service or were fired.
The decentralized political system in the US guarantees individual (fossil-fuel dominated) states considerable influence: One single Democratic senator, Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia, had slowed down Joe Biden’s climate course for a long time.
On the other hand, this grassroots structure also helps to prevent a total climate clean sweep when there is a change of power in Washington. When President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement in 2017, states, businesses, environmental groups, and foundations banded together to form the “We Are Still In” initiative to still meet the goals of the agreement.

Economic pressure is high

Economic pressures are more important than political decisions. Unlike EU countries, for example, the US relies less on detailed regulation. Instead, it favors quotas, tax breaks and technical innovation. The decline in US emissions in recent years is less the result of targeted policies than of the success of cheap fracking gas, which replaced coal. And just how the 369 billion dollars in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will impact national and international climate policy is unclear. Experts calculate that it will cut carbon emissions by 31 to 44 percent by 2030 – a far cry from the 50 to 52 percent in the US National Climate Action Plan (NDC).
The current high inflation makes higher gas prices unpopular. In any case, the dependence of the USA on cars and airplanes limits the political leeway for fiscal measures, while the damage caused by climate change fuels inflation.
The US is traditionally critical of state intervention. Many people consider taxes to be an unacceptable curtailment of freedom. Carbon pricing and emissions trading for the industry exist in only 15 of 50 states.

Environment and climate hardly play a role in geopolitics

In US geopolitics, environmental and climate issues tend to take a back seat to other interests. The interests in the Persian Gulf, for example, are centered on the petro-states in the region. Many also see the conflict with China as a conflict over the markets for renewable energies – which China currently dominates.