These days, we could publish a Climate.Table almost every day exclusively with news about fires, floods and heat waves around the globe. Take Canada, for example. The second-largest country in the world is currently experiencing the worst wildfires in its history. But politicians continue to bicker about small-scale measures rather than devising a stringent strategy, as our colleague from Canada, Krista Hessey, reports.
And it is not just Canada: The climate hardly plays a role at the BRICS summit either, although some of the biggest emitters are meeting in Johannesburg. But as our analysis shows, geopolitical intrigues push the climate into the background. The German government’s slow pace in climate action could have two consequences: Environmentalists and a legal opinion indicate that the government is breaking the law. Climate lawsuits could gain traction. And failing to meet climate targets will also be costly, reports Bernhard Pötter.
Ecuador shows how things can be done better. On Sunday, its people voted against oil drilling in parts of the Yasuní National Park. About 15 years ago, the government still sought high compensation from international donors in exchange for stopping oil production in the region. The positive outcome of the referendum is at least a small sign of hope in times of climate disasters.
Although climate action is on the official agenda at the current meeting of the BRICS countries in South Africa, it is overshadowed by other current issues. Global warming has reached a new record this year and is not stopping at BRICS countries. China and India have been hit by heat waves and heavy rain, wildfires in Siberia are out of control, and Brazil is expecting an “eccentric winter” with extreme rain. But there are other more pressing issues for the five largest emerging economies at their meeting in South Africa, as became apparent at the start of the summit on Tuesday: For instance, the admission of new members, the economic cooperation between the countries in the Global South, and the design of the new BRICS bank.
Officially, the equitable “transformational changes across all sectors of the economy” to address climate change is at the top of the agenda released by host South Africa. In addition, the following issues will be addressed:
The host country South Africa places the transition to a post-fossil economy at the core of its climate efforts at this summit. However, Pretoria’s “Just Energy Transition Partnership” (JETP) is not a project with the BRICS countries, but with the countries of the Global North. The BRICS alliance traditionally opposes the dominance of the “West” on the international stage.
The EU, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and France have already pledged 8.5 billion US dollars for South Africa’s JETP. The country is dealing with a severe energy crisis caused by its aging fleet of coal-fired power plants and corruption at the state-owned energy company Eskom. In the meantime, however, South Africa’s government wants to put the phase-out of old coal-fired power plants necessary for the JETP on hold.
Overall, the BRICS summit will debate familiar climate policy issues:
Urgent calls to reduce emissions, expand renewables, or even a fossil fuel phase-out remain absent from the BRICS demands so far.
The five BRICS countries currently account for a total of around 45 percent of current CO2 energy emissions. If emissions from deforestation are factored in, Brazil’s membership significantly increases the figure. The inclusion of new members would further darken this balance: Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Indonesia and Iran are other CO2 heavyweights on the list of potential members.
When it comes to climate policy and at the COPs, the BRICS countries have acted very differently in recent years. While Russia is holding on to fossils for as long as possible with a low profile and has been relatively isolated in the plenary since the invasion of Ukraine, China now dominates the negotiations both in front of and behind the scenes. South Africa considers itself an advocate for Africa, but its economic power and CO2 emissions put it in a different league than most African countries.
Brazil, in turn, is focusing on forests and carbon trading and is once again an active player after the destructive years of Bolsonaro. India, finally, is insisting above all on rights and aid from developed countries for poor countries – but was also let down by many emerging and developing countries at the last COP: India’s proposal to “phase down” all fossil fuels did not find its way into the final document of the Egyptian COP presidency, despite receiving widespread support.
The climate issue appears only in passing and in the usual generic terms in the preparatory documents for the BRICS summit. At their preparatory meeting in Pretoria in June, BRICS environment ministers said they wanted to “address the challenges posed by climate change while also ensuring a just, fair and equitable and sustainable transition to a low-carbon economy.” In the process, they want to focus on “the principle of equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Respective Capabilities” that commit developed countries to providing aid. As usual, they also particularly emphasize the obligation of wealthy nations to provide financial and technical assistance. They support the achievement of environmental goals within the UN system and emphasize the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda (SDG).
One important point: The BRICS countries firmly oppose “trade barriers.” This refers, for instance, to the EU climate tariff CBAM, which will enter its first phase in October. It pressures countries exporting steel and other products, such as China and India, to reduce CO2 emissions.
In the climate and environmental debate, the BRICS countries do not form a united front: Cracks are also forming in geopolitics of the climate crisis between the democracies in Brazil, South Africa and India on the one side and the autocratic regimes of China and Russia on the other: While India, for example, supports the goal of strongly expanding renewable energy and energy efficiency, Russia, as an exporter of coal, oil and gas, has little interest in doing so. South Africa is cooperating closely with its Western JETP partners, and Brazil is using its Amazon fund to solicit money from developed countries for rainforest conservation. China, in turn, decides the fate of the entire global climate policy thanks to its exclusive relationship with the United States.
A document from the May 2022 virtual meeting chaired by China shows how the BRICS countries position themselves in this regard. It says that:
Last Sunday, more than 5.2 million people in Ecuador voted to stop crude oil drilling in ITT Block 43 of the Yasuní National Park in the Amazon region. The referendum was held in parallel with the presidential elections and has far-reaching implications. Its result is binding, regardless of who heads the country’s government. However, it must be legally implemented first – and how that is done depends very much on the next government.
In the first round of the presidential elections, left-wing candidate Luisa González received 33 percent of the votes. The liberal entrepreneur Daniel Noboa received 24 percent. The runoff election is on October 15. Before the referendum, Noboa already declared his support for halting oil production. González did not make a clear statement on Yasuní, but emphasized the importance of the oil industry for the economy and jobs.
The referendum was held under the question, “Do you agree that the Ecuadorian government should keep the ITT oil fields, known as Block 43, indefinitely underground?” 59 percent answered yes. This means that oil production in the Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputini regions of Block 43 will end. The acronym ITT is derived from the names.
Environmental organizations around the world consider the result a success for the climate and biodiversity. For the first time, a referendum forces a government to leave oil in the ground and dismantle fossil fuel infrastructure. The region is home to isolated indigenous peoples. The biodiversity there is high. Meanwhile, the ITT oil fields have long been the scene of global conflict between energy companies and climate activists.
The consequences of the referendum in detail:
The central bank’s estimate highlights the country’s strong economic dependence on oil. Although only around two percent of the Amazon’s area lies in Ecuador, the country is the region’s largest oil producer: In 2021, 93 percent of the oil from the Amazon basin came from Ecuador. Oil exports account for between 6 and 10 percent of gross domestic product and more than 20 percent of government revenues. Around 12 percent of the country’s oil production volume, equivalent to around 57,000 barrels a day, comes from the region affected by the referendum.
The referendum’s result now represents the first major sign of a rethink in economic policy. A new referendum or another parliament or government cannot reverse it. The decision is economically fatal and “terrible for the country,” Nelson Baldeon, an independent energy policy consultant focused on Ecuador, told Table.Media. He said that oil has been extracted in the Yasuní region under the strictest environmental regulations, and that the ecological damage has been marginal.
Alberto Acosta, left-wing economist and former energy minister of the country, on the other hand, believes that the extraction halt makes a “utopia” come true. The referendum heralds a “turning point in Amazon conservation” and makes it clear that Ecuador needs “a post-extractivism strategy.”
Environmental organizations also welcome the referendum result: “We are very pleased,” Pedro Bermeo, spokesman for the pro-referendum initiative YASunidos, told Table.Media. He says the referendum clearly shows that there is greater unity for stopping oil production than for a presidential candidate. Ute Koczy, a former member of the Green Party in the German Bundestag and now a campaigner for the environmental organization Urgewald, called the referendum a “historic victory.” She said the referendum would also send an important signal for initiatives against oil production in other regions of the world, such as Nigeria and Uganda.
The referendum was preceded by a 15-year conflict over oil in the Yasuní National Park:
It was not the only referendum this weekend: In parallel, people around the capital Quito voted on mining in the Chocó Andino region. Around 68 percent voted against. This means that new mining projects in the region are now prohibited. Previously awarded licenses remain valid. “The result is a clear and important sign for an alternative economy that is not based on the exploitation of people and raw materials,” Constantin Bittner, consultant for mining and sustainable development in Latin America at Misereor, told Table.Media.
Economist Acosta said that voting outcomes are not automatically implemented in Ecuador. The initiative YASunidos wants to ensure that this actually happens in the case of Yasuní. According to Koczy, how the referendum results are implemented depends mainly on the stance of the next government. The climate and the environment are currently not a priority in Ecuador’s domestic politics. The political situation is tense and characterized by drug trafficking and violence. The murder of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio overshadowed the elections.
Canada is currently experiencing the worst wildfire season in its history. But the devastation is hardly affecting the political landscape: The Conservative Party continues to campaign against a CO2 tax, while the ruling Liberal Party announces its climate adaptation program as the fires rage. And many people do not believe the government’s climate policy can do anything about the crisis.
Like West Kelowna, a small town in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. Thick yellow smoke hangs over the once-picturesque town known for its sandy beaches and wineries. It now lies in ruins after an aggressive forest fire raged through the area. It is one of 377 active forest fires in British Columbia that led the province to declare a state of emergency over the weekend.
Now, all eyes are turning to Yellowknife as multiple fast-spreading wildfires take hold in the capital of the Northwest Territories. More than 20,000 people have been evacuated from the city in the north. Some rain on Monday has given people hope, but the mayor warned that “the city is still under a threat.”
Forests have been burning across Canada since early May. According to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, 15.3 million hectares of land have been destroyed so far. Crops have withered, tens of thousands of people have been forced to leave their homes, and toxic smoke plumes continue to pollute the air quality from coast to coast.
According to World Weather Attribution, a website that analyzes data to determine how climate change affects the intensity and likelihood of extreme weather events, the early summer from May to June has been the warmest since 1940. These conditions formed the basis for the most impactful wildfire season in Canada’s history. It was fueled by strong winds, drought, and heat, and provides a glimpse of the country’s future.
Some Canadian politicians, however, have not yet realized this reality. While images of charred, apocalyptic landscapes circulated in the news, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre railed against the government’s recent carbon tax increase. Poilievre had planned to take his “Axe the Tax” campaign to the Yukon Territory this Thursday, but the rally has been postponed due to the “severe wildfires.”
This irony is not lost on the public. Most believe climate change to be responsible for extreme weather events such as the catastrophic floods of 2021 and this summer’s record-breaking wildfires. Yet, a survey conducted in early August found that 45 percent of Canadians believe the carbon tax is ineffective in fighting climate change. The wildfires have not strengthened proponents of the carbon tax. On the contrary, for some critics, they are proof that the Liberal government’s strategy to reduce emissions is not working. “It now clear that Trudeau’s climate change plan … has failed to protect Canadians from what he knew was coming thanks to the biggest global emitters,” tweeted one Conservative commentator.
Many conservatives believe Canada’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases are futile and unnecessarily harm the economy. After all, countries like China, the United States and India continue to rely on fossil fuels.
In contrast, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is positioning himself, saying his Liberal Party is facing these historic challenges rather than ignoring them. The transition to a low-carbon economy was at the core of this year’s budget, which includes 20 billion Canadian dollars in subsidies over the next six years to stimulate investment in green technologies. This is part of their strategy to get Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, which includes the oil and gas sector.
In June, the Liberals announced their long-awaited national climate change adaptation strategy. At the same time, wildfire smoke drifted across Ottawa, Montreal and New York. To some, the timing couldn’t have been worse: too little, too late.
While politicians argue over the cost of the carbon tax, provinces and municipalities are only beginning to quantify the damage from this year’s wildfire season. While it’s too early to calculate the impact of the fires on the Canadian economy, a report from last year predicted that Canada will suffer climate-related costs of 25 billion Canadian dollars by 2025. That is equivalent to halving economic growth.
These economic costs will be hard to ignore as extreme weather events – heat, floods, and fires – increase with the global climate crisis. Whether the current apocalyptic wildfire season shifts the debate toward more pressing emissions reductions could depend on the final price tag. Krista Hessey, Toronto/Berlin
Following two audit reports on the impact of German climate policy, a debate has begun as to whether the German Federal Climate Change Act (KSG) and the resulting Climate Protection Plan (CSP) are compatible with the German constitution. Following the report by the Council of Experts on Climate Change and the 2023 forecast report from the German Federal Environment Agency, climate activists are accusing the German government of “breach of law” because its planned measures are insufficient to meet the KSG’s goals. The reports also provide them with arguments in ongoing climate litigation in German courts. In response to a question from Table.Media, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK), on the other hand, rejects the accusations.
On Tuesday, the Council of Experts on Climate Change announced its assessment of the “Climate Protection Program 2023” presented by the German government, which includes around 130 measures. It concludes:
On the same day, the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) presented its 2023 projection report. It also confirms that with its current efforts, Germany will not reach its targets under the Climate Change Act. By 2030, current measures would result in excess emissions of 331 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, while additional measures would still result in an excess of 194 million metric tons being emitted into the atmosphere. The KSG reduction target of 65 percent in 2030 would be missed by a minus 63 percent with current measures.
According to initial estimates, failing to meet targets for European climate efforts could also be expensive for Germany. If the targets are missed, Germany would be forced to buy emissions allowances from other EU countries for a portion of the emissions under the “effort sharing” section. The estimated cost up to 2030 is between 15 and 30 billion euros.
This announced failure to meet targets under the KSG could be unconstitutional, according to a legal opinion published last week by the think tank Agora Verkehrswende and Agora Energiewende. It says that “the climate action program does not meet the legal requirements for a number of reasons.” The “substantial target failures laid out in it are also constitutionally questionable.” The report was compiled by the law firm Günther, including the renowned lawyer Roda Verheyen. Verheyen was involved in the constitutional lawsuit that prompted the German Constitutional Court to issue its landmark climate action ruling in 2021.
The legal opinion found “considerable deficiencies” in the government’s “overall package” of draft climate legislation, climate action program and projection data, which “are also problematic from a constitutional perspective when viewed in their entirety.” Although the KSG draft is constitutional and complies with EU law, its provisions must also be implemented in order to protect the climate and the future civil liberties of future generations – and this is where “structural hurdles” hinder effective implementation: For example, the removal of sectoral responsibility in the KSG amendment.
Due to the “fulfillment gap” of about 200 million tons and the lack of clear data and measures, the Climate Action Programme is “clearly unlawful.” The missed targets are “constitutionally questionable” because they shift the burden of climate action further into the future, which conflicts with the safeguarding of “intertemporal freedom” as required by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) rejects these accusations in response to a question. A spokeswoman explains: “With the KSP 2023, the climate action gap that has built up from previous legislative periods will be significantly reduced from around 1,100 million tons to around 200 million tons. This means that a lot has already been achieved, but at the same time, there is still further need for action. It is, of course, the right of every citizen to take legal action against the government’s climate policy. Our task is to remove the need for these lawsuits.”
Environmental organizations, on the other hand, speak of a “breach of law” committed by the government. “The German government’s climate policy violates the law,” says Christoph Bals of Germanwatch. The group “Last Generation” also criticizes that the government “continues to break the law.” Environmental Action Germany, for example, which has already filed several climate lawsuits, sees the Council of Experts’ report as a welcome argumentation aid for its lawsuits.
Felix Ekardt, Director of the Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Policy in Leipzig, also said, “The current climate action targets in the KSG are unconstitutional and also violate the Paris Climate Agreement. If the government now misses these inadequate targets again by a wide margin, it is all the more unconstitutional.”
In the EU Commission’s consultation on the Union’s climate target for 2040, a majority of participants spoke out in favor of more speed in climate action. The highest level of support for greater CO2 reductions was in the transport sector – both aviation and road transport. That’s according to a summary of feedback published by the Commission on Monday.
The consultation ran from the end of March to the end of June. A total of 879 responses were included in the summary. However, it is not a representative survey. Around 53 percent of the comments came from EU citizens, 28 percent from companies and trade associations. In a comparison between EU countries, the highest number of respondents (27 percent) came from Germany.
With regard to the agricultural sector, a large majority of respondents believed that soft approaches such as information campaigns and more technical innovations were unsuitable for driving forward the transformation. If the EU were to introduce a CO2 price for the agricultural sector, a majority want it to be levied at the level of food companies or fertilizer manufacturers rather than farmers or consumers.
A majority also favored three separate climate change targets for greenhouse gas reduction, nature-based removals, and industrial CO2 removals from the atmosphere. There was a slight preference for nature-based removals. A split emerged on the question of the importance of CO2 removal in general for climate neutrality in 2050. Accordingly, science, the public sector and companies saw a high significance. ber
Visits to his grandparents have always been filled with exciting stories and souvenirs of their travels around the world, Josh Carter, grandson of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, told People Magazine. But in recent times, the visits have changed. Josh Carter says the former US president and his wife are “entering the final chapter” of a long life. The visits have become quieter. In February, Jimmy Carter decided to spend the rest of his life close to family and refrain from further medical procedures. At 98, Carter looks back on a long life – when it came to energy and climate issues, the former US president was ahead of his time.
In early 1979, he called for 20 percent of energy in the United States to come from renewable sources. When he unveiled 32 solar panels on the White House roof to provide hot water a few months later, he clearly wanted a clean-energy future, but knew it was not certain:
“A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.”
Carter’s actions and remarks during his single term as US president (1977-81) reveal a foresight on climate change very atypical for the time:
Carter’s concern about this dependence was an important motivation. The OPEC oil embargo from 1973 to 74 resulted in long lines at the gas pumps and sharpened attention to energy issues. His push for greater energy independence was not entirely green – it included greater domestic coal use.
Carter had limited success in implementing his program. Congress excluded many of his proposals from the 1978 National Energy Act. A tax credit for residential solar had little impact.
However, historians believe that Carter has an excellent track record of protecting the environment. He conserved large areas of Alaska by blocking oil exploration. Douglas Brinkley, a prominent presidential historian, told the Washington Post that Carter, like the two Roosevelts, will go down in history “as one of the greatest conservation presidents or environmental presidents of all time.”
This recognition focuses less on Carter’s immediate accomplishments and more on his pioneering, far-sighted work on climate change and the energy transition. Bill Dawson from Houston
These days, we could publish a Climate.Table almost every day exclusively with news about fires, floods and heat waves around the globe. Take Canada, for example. The second-largest country in the world is currently experiencing the worst wildfires in its history. But politicians continue to bicker about small-scale measures rather than devising a stringent strategy, as our colleague from Canada, Krista Hessey, reports.
And it is not just Canada: The climate hardly plays a role at the BRICS summit either, although some of the biggest emitters are meeting in Johannesburg. But as our analysis shows, geopolitical intrigues push the climate into the background. The German government’s slow pace in climate action could have two consequences: Environmentalists and a legal opinion indicate that the government is breaking the law. Climate lawsuits could gain traction. And failing to meet climate targets will also be costly, reports Bernhard Pötter.
Ecuador shows how things can be done better. On Sunday, its people voted against oil drilling in parts of the Yasuní National Park. About 15 years ago, the government still sought high compensation from international donors in exchange for stopping oil production in the region. The positive outcome of the referendum is at least a small sign of hope in times of climate disasters.
Although climate action is on the official agenda at the current meeting of the BRICS countries in South Africa, it is overshadowed by other current issues. Global warming has reached a new record this year and is not stopping at BRICS countries. China and India have been hit by heat waves and heavy rain, wildfires in Siberia are out of control, and Brazil is expecting an “eccentric winter” with extreme rain. But there are other more pressing issues for the five largest emerging economies at their meeting in South Africa, as became apparent at the start of the summit on Tuesday: For instance, the admission of new members, the economic cooperation between the countries in the Global South, and the design of the new BRICS bank.
Officially, the equitable “transformational changes across all sectors of the economy” to address climate change is at the top of the agenda released by host South Africa. In addition, the following issues will be addressed:
The host country South Africa places the transition to a post-fossil economy at the core of its climate efforts at this summit. However, Pretoria’s “Just Energy Transition Partnership” (JETP) is not a project with the BRICS countries, but with the countries of the Global North. The BRICS alliance traditionally opposes the dominance of the “West” on the international stage.
The EU, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and France have already pledged 8.5 billion US dollars for South Africa’s JETP. The country is dealing with a severe energy crisis caused by its aging fleet of coal-fired power plants and corruption at the state-owned energy company Eskom. In the meantime, however, South Africa’s government wants to put the phase-out of old coal-fired power plants necessary for the JETP on hold.
Overall, the BRICS summit will debate familiar climate policy issues:
Urgent calls to reduce emissions, expand renewables, or even a fossil fuel phase-out remain absent from the BRICS demands so far.
The five BRICS countries currently account for a total of around 45 percent of current CO2 energy emissions. If emissions from deforestation are factored in, Brazil’s membership significantly increases the figure. The inclusion of new members would further darken this balance: Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Indonesia and Iran are other CO2 heavyweights on the list of potential members.
When it comes to climate policy and at the COPs, the BRICS countries have acted very differently in recent years. While Russia is holding on to fossils for as long as possible with a low profile and has been relatively isolated in the plenary since the invasion of Ukraine, China now dominates the negotiations both in front of and behind the scenes. South Africa considers itself an advocate for Africa, but its economic power and CO2 emissions put it in a different league than most African countries.
Brazil, in turn, is focusing on forests and carbon trading and is once again an active player after the destructive years of Bolsonaro. India, finally, is insisting above all on rights and aid from developed countries for poor countries – but was also let down by many emerging and developing countries at the last COP: India’s proposal to “phase down” all fossil fuels did not find its way into the final document of the Egyptian COP presidency, despite receiving widespread support.
The climate issue appears only in passing and in the usual generic terms in the preparatory documents for the BRICS summit. At their preparatory meeting in Pretoria in June, BRICS environment ministers said they wanted to “address the challenges posed by climate change while also ensuring a just, fair and equitable and sustainable transition to a low-carbon economy.” In the process, they want to focus on “the principle of equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Respective Capabilities” that commit developed countries to providing aid. As usual, they also particularly emphasize the obligation of wealthy nations to provide financial and technical assistance. They support the achievement of environmental goals within the UN system and emphasize the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda (SDG).
One important point: The BRICS countries firmly oppose “trade barriers.” This refers, for instance, to the EU climate tariff CBAM, which will enter its first phase in October. It pressures countries exporting steel and other products, such as China and India, to reduce CO2 emissions.
In the climate and environmental debate, the BRICS countries do not form a united front: Cracks are also forming in geopolitics of the climate crisis between the democracies in Brazil, South Africa and India on the one side and the autocratic regimes of China and Russia on the other: While India, for example, supports the goal of strongly expanding renewable energy and energy efficiency, Russia, as an exporter of coal, oil and gas, has little interest in doing so. South Africa is cooperating closely with its Western JETP partners, and Brazil is using its Amazon fund to solicit money from developed countries for rainforest conservation. China, in turn, decides the fate of the entire global climate policy thanks to its exclusive relationship with the United States.
A document from the May 2022 virtual meeting chaired by China shows how the BRICS countries position themselves in this regard. It says that:
Last Sunday, more than 5.2 million people in Ecuador voted to stop crude oil drilling in ITT Block 43 of the Yasuní National Park in the Amazon region. The referendum was held in parallel with the presidential elections and has far-reaching implications. Its result is binding, regardless of who heads the country’s government. However, it must be legally implemented first – and how that is done depends very much on the next government.
In the first round of the presidential elections, left-wing candidate Luisa González received 33 percent of the votes. The liberal entrepreneur Daniel Noboa received 24 percent. The runoff election is on October 15. Before the referendum, Noboa already declared his support for halting oil production. González did not make a clear statement on Yasuní, but emphasized the importance of the oil industry for the economy and jobs.
The referendum was held under the question, “Do you agree that the Ecuadorian government should keep the ITT oil fields, known as Block 43, indefinitely underground?” 59 percent answered yes. This means that oil production in the Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputini regions of Block 43 will end. The acronym ITT is derived from the names.
Environmental organizations around the world consider the result a success for the climate and biodiversity. For the first time, a referendum forces a government to leave oil in the ground and dismantle fossil fuel infrastructure. The region is home to isolated indigenous peoples. The biodiversity there is high. Meanwhile, the ITT oil fields have long been the scene of global conflict between energy companies and climate activists.
The consequences of the referendum in detail:
The central bank’s estimate highlights the country’s strong economic dependence on oil. Although only around two percent of the Amazon’s area lies in Ecuador, the country is the region’s largest oil producer: In 2021, 93 percent of the oil from the Amazon basin came from Ecuador. Oil exports account for between 6 and 10 percent of gross domestic product and more than 20 percent of government revenues. Around 12 percent of the country’s oil production volume, equivalent to around 57,000 barrels a day, comes from the region affected by the referendum.
The referendum’s result now represents the first major sign of a rethink in economic policy. A new referendum or another parliament or government cannot reverse it. The decision is economically fatal and “terrible for the country,” Nelson Baldeon, an independent energy policy consultant focused on Ecuador, told Table.Media. He said that oil has been extracted in the Yasuní region under the strictest environmental regulations, and that the ecological damage has been marginal.
Alberto Acosta, left-wing economist and former energy minister of the country, on the other hand, believes that the extraction halt makes a “utopia” come true. The referendum heralds a “turning point in Amazon conservation” and makes it clear that Ecuador needs “a post-extractivism strategy.”
Environmental organizations also welcome the referendum result: “We are very pleased,” Pedro Bermeo, spokesman for the pro-referendum initiative YASunidos, told Table.Media. He says the referendum clearly shows that there is greater unity for stopping oil production than for a presidential candidate. Ute Koczy, a former member of the Green Party in the German Bundestag and now a campaigner for the environmental organization Urgewald, called the referendum a “historic victory.” She said the referendum would also send an important signal for initiatives against oil production in other regions of the world, such as Nigeria and Uganda.
The referendum was preceded by a 15-year conflict over oil in the Yasuní National Park:
It was not the only referendum this weekend: In parallel, people around the capital Quito voted on mining in the Chocó Andino region. Around 68 percent voted against. This means that new mining projects in the region are now prohibited. Previously awarded licenses remain valid. “The result is a clear and important sign for an alternative economy that is not based on the exploitation of people and raw materials,” Constantin Bittner, consultant for mining and sustainable development in Latin America at Misereor, told Table.Media.
Economist Acosta said that voting outcomes are not automatically implemented in Ecuador. The initiative YASunidos wants to ensure that this actually happens in the case of Yasuní. According to Koczy, how the referendum results are implemented depends mainly on the stance of the next government. The climate and the environment are currently not a priority in Ecuador’s domestic politics. The political situation is tense and characterized by drug trafficking and violence. The murder of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio overshadowed the elections.
Canada is currently experiencing the worst wildfire season in its history. But the devastation is hardly affecting the political landscape: The Conservative Party continues to campaign against a CO2 tax, while the ruling Liberal Party announces its climate adaptation program as the fires rage. And many people do not believe the government’s climate policy can do anything about the crisis.
Like West Kelowna, a small town in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. Thick yellow smoke hangs over the once-picturesque town known for its sandy beaches and wineries. It now lies in ruins after an aggressive forest fire raged through the area. It is one of 377 active forest fires in British Columbia that led the province to declare a state of emergency over the weekend.
Now, all eyes are turning to Yellowknife as multiple fast-spreading wildfires take hold in the capital of the Northwest Territories. More than 20,000 people have been evacuated from the city in the north. Some rain on Monday has given people hope, but the mayor warned that “the city is still under a threat.”
Forests have been burning across Canada since early May. According to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, 15.3 million hectares of land have been destroyed so far. Crops have withered, tens of thousands of people have been forced to leave their homes, and toxic smoke plumes continue to pollute the air quality from coast to coast.
According to World Weather Attribution, a website that analyzes data to determine how climate change affects the intensity and likelihood of extreme weather events, the early summer from May to June has been the warmest since 1940. These conditions formed the basis for the most impactful wildfire season in Canada’s history. It was fueled by strong winds, drought, and heat, and provides a glimpse of the country’s future.
Some Canadian politicians, however, have not yet realized this reality. While images of charred, apocalyptic landscapes circulated in the news, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre railed against the government’s recent carbon tax increase. Poilievre had planned to take his “Axe the Tax” campaign to the Yukon Territory this Thursday, but the rally has been postponed due to the “severe wildfires.”
This irony is not lost on the public. Most believe climate change to be responsible for extreme weather events such as the catastrophic floods of 2021 and this summer’s record-breaking wildfires. Yet, a survey conducted in early August found that 45 percent of Canadians believe the carbon tax is ineffective in fighting climate change. The wildfires have not strengthened proponents of the carbon tax. On the contrary, for some critics, they are proof that the Liberal government’s strategy to reduce emissions is not working. “It now clear that Trudeau’s climate change plan … has failed to protect Canadians from what he knew was coming thanks to the biggest global emitters,” tweeted one Conservative commentator.
Many conservatives believe Canada’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases are futile and unnecessarily harm the economy. After all, countries like China, the United States and India continue to rely on fossil fuels.
In contrast, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is positioning himself, saying his Liberal Party is facing these historic challenges rather than ignoring them. The transition to a low-carbon economy was at the core of this year’s budget, which includes 20 billion Canadian dollars in subsidies over the next six years to stimulate investment in green technologies. This is part of their strategy to get Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, which includes the oil and gas sector.
In June, the Liberals announced their long-awaited national climate change adaptation strategy. At the same time, wildfire smoke drifted across Ottawa, Montreal and New York. To some, the timing couldn’t have been worse: too little, too late.
While politicians argue over the cost of the carbon tax, provinces and municipalities are only beginning to quantify the damage from this year’s wildfire season. While it’s too early to calculate the impact of the fires on the Canadian economy, a report from last year predicted that Canada will suffer climate-related costs of 25 billion Canadian dollars by 2025. That is equivalent to halving economic growth.
These economic costs will be hard to ignore as extreme weather events – heat, floods, and fires – increase with the global climate crisis. Whether the current apocalyptic wildfire season shifts the debate toward more pressing emissions reductions could depend on the final price tag. Krista Hessey, Toronto/Berlin
Following two audit reports on the impact of German climate policy, a debate has begun as to whether the German Federal Climate Change Act (KSG) and the resulting Climate Protection Plan (CSP) are compatible with the German constitution. Following the report by the Council of Experts on Climate Change and the 2023 forecast report from the German Federal Environment Agency, climate activists are accusing the German government of “breach of law” because its planned measures are insufficient to meet the KSG’s goals. The reports also provide them with arguments in ongoing climate litigation in German courts. In response to a question from Table.Media, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK), on the other hand, rejects the accusations.
On Tuesday, the Council of Experts on Climate Change announced its assessment of the “Climate Protection Program 2023” presented by the German government, which includes around 130 measures. It concludes:
On the same day, the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) presented its 2023 projection report. It also confirms that with its current efforts, Germany will not reach its targets under the Climate Change Act. By 2030, current measures would result in excess emissions of 331 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, while additional measures would still result in an excess of 194 million metric tons being emitted into the atmosphere. The KSG reduction target of 65 percent in 2030 would be missed by a minus 63 percent with current measures.
According to initial estimates, failing to meet targets for European climate efforts could also be expensive for Germany. If the targets are missed, Germany would be forced to buy emissions allowances from other EU countries for a portion of the emissions under the “effort sharing” section. The estimated cost up to 2030 is between 15 and 30 billion euros.
This announced failure to meet targets under the KSG could be unconstitutional, according to a legal opinion published last week by the think tank Agora Verkehrswende and Agora Energiewende. It says that “the climate action program does not meet the legal requirements for a number of reasons.” The “substantial target failures laid out in it are also constitutionally questionable.” The report was compiled by the law firm Günther, including the renowned lawyer Roda Verheyen. Verheyen was involved in the constitutional lawsuit that prompted the German Constitutional Court to issue its landmark climate action ruling in 2021.
The legal opinion found “considerable deficiencies” in the government’s “overall package” of draft climate legislation, climate action program and projection data, which “are also problematic from a constitutional perspective when viewed in their entirety.” Although the KSG draft is constitutional and complies with EU law, its provisions must also be implemented in order to protect the climate and the future civil liberties of future generations – and this is where “structural hurdles” hinder effective implementation: For example, the removal of sectoral responsibility in the KSG amendment.
Due to the “fulfillment gap” of about 200 million tons and the lack of clear data and measures, the Climate Action Programme is “clearly unlawful.” The missed targets are “constitutionally questionable” because they shift the burden of climate action further into the future, which conflicts with the safeguarding of “intertemporal freedom” as required by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) rejects these accusations in response to a question. A spokeswoman explains: “With the KSP 2023, the climate action gap that has built up from previous legislative periods will be significantly reduced from around 1,100 million tons to around 200 million tons. This means that a lot has already been achieved, but at the same time, there is still further need for action. It is, of course, the right of every citizen to take legal action against the government’s climate policy. Our task is to remove the need for these lawsuits.”
Environmental organizations, on the other hand, speak of a “breach of law” committed by the government. “The German government’s climate policy violates the law,” says Christoph Bals of Germanwatch. The group “Last Generation” also criticizes that the government “continues to break the law.” Environmental Action Germany, for example, which has already filed several climate lawsuits, sees the Council of Experts’ report as a welcome argumentation aid for its lawsuits.
Felix Ekardt, Director of the Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Policy in Leipzig, also said, “The current climate action targets in the KSG are unconstitutional and also violate the Paris Climate Agreement. If the government now misses these inadequate targets again by a wide margin, it is all the more unconstitutional.”
In the EU Commission’s consultation on the Union’s climate target for 2040, a majority of participants spoke out in favor of more speed in climate action. The highest level of support for greater CO2 reductions was in the transport sector – both aviation and road transport. That’s according to a summary of feedback published by the Commission on Monday.
The consultation ran from the end of March to the end of June. A total of 879 responses were included in the summary. However, it is not a representative survey. Around 53 percent of the comments came from EU citizens, 28 percent from companies and trade associations. In a comparison between EU countries, the highest number of respondents (27 percent) came from Germany.
With regard to the agricultural sector, a large majority of respondents believed that soft approaches such as information campaigns and more technical innovations were unsuitable for driving forward the transformation. If the EU were to introduce a CO2 price for the agricultural sector, a majority want it to be levied at the level of food companies or fertilizer manufacturers rather than farmers or consumers.
A majority also favored three separate climate change targets for greenhouse gas reduction, nature-based removals, and industrial CO2 removals from the atmosphere. There was a slight preference for nature-based removals. A split emerged on the question of the importance of CO2 removal in general for climate neutrality in 2050. Accordingly, science, the public sector and companies saw a high significance. ber
Visits to his grandparents have always been filled with exciting stories and souvenirs of their travels around the world, Josh Carter, grandson of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, told People Magazine. But in recent times, the visits have changed. Josh Carter says the former US president and his wife are “entering the final chapter” of a long life. The visits have become quieter. In February, Jimmy Carter decided to spend the rest of his life close to family and refrain from further medical procedures. At 98, Carter looks back on a long life – when it came to energy and climate issues, the former US president was ahead of his time.
In early 1979, he called for 20 percent of energy in the United States to come from renewable sources. When he unveiled 32 solar panels on the White House roof to provide hot water a few months later, he clearly wanted a clean-energy future, but knew it was not certain:
“A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.”
Carter’s actions and remarks during his single term as US president (1977-81) reveal a foresight on climate change very atypical for the time:
Carter’s concern about this dependence was an important motivation. The OPEC oil embargo from 1973 to 74 resulted in long lines at the gas pumps and sharpened attention to energy issues. His push for greater energy independence was not entirely green – it included greater domestic coal use.
Carter had limited success in implementing his program. Congress excluded many of his proposals from the 1978 National Energy Act. A tax credit for residential solar had little impact.
However, historians believe that Carter has an excellent track record of protecting the environment. He conserved large areas of Alaska by blocking oil exploration. Douglas Brinkley, a prominent presidential historian, told the Washington Post that Carter, like the two Roosevelts, will go down in history “as one of the greatest conservation presidents or environmental presidents of all time.”
This recognition focuses less on Carter’s immediate accomplishments and more on his pioneering, far-sighted work on climate change and the energy transition. Bill Dawson from Houston
