John Kerry has set his sights on the money of corporations and big banks. The US climate czar presented an initiative for a carbon offset plan for companies – but it clashes with new UN anti-greenwashing proposals. Kerry’s intention is to use it to mobilize private funds for the energy transition and climate adaptation in the Global South. Sounds good – but there is a real risk that companies will simply buy their way out of their climate obligations, reports Bernhard Poetter.
At COP, many eyes are also on China, the world’s largest carbon emitter. The country expressed its willingness to participate in a mechanism to compensate for losses and damage, said Xie, China’s special envoy on climate change. This could be a door opener for the major polluters from the emerging countries to also bear a share of the costs of climate damage – and put the industrialized countries under greater pressure.
There are also new observations on emissions in the People’s Republic. Many things point to a carbon peak well before 2030: From new renewables expansion plans to a lack of provincial funding for fossil fuel stimulus programs. Is this reason for optimism? Only to a limited extent – because China’s climate targets are still not in line with the Paris Agreement. Therefore, efforts must be stepped up.
A current US initiative for voluntary trading of carbon credits for companies conflicts with new UN proposals against greenwashing. The US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, presented the “Energy Transition Accelerator” (ETA) instrument at COP27 on Wednesday.
It is designed to finance the energy transition in emerging countries with private capital from the USA in exchange for voluntary carbon credits. However, on the previous day, the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) of UN Secretary General António Guterres warned against such schemes.
Kerry’s proposal, which he made in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund: An “innovative partnership” to direct “private investment in comprehensive energy transition strategies” by 2030 or 2035. This means in detail:
The idea is to close the huge gap between the necessary and the planned investments in the restructuring of energy systems, adaptation to climate change and nature conservation. Just the day before, a group of experts from the British and Egyptian COP presidencies calculated that a trillion dollars would be needed in 2025 – roughly twice the current funding (Climate Table reported).
According to ETA, participating companies can also use the credits to address a “limited portion of Scope 3 emissions” (Carbon emissions from supply chain and product use) “within a company’s near-term target.”
However, this conflicts with the recommendations of the UN expert panel HLEG. The group presented its final report at COP on Tuesday with UN chief Guterres. The report points to the risk of misleading climate promises (“greenwashing”) by companies and other non-state actors.
Specifically, it says, “High integrity carbon credits in voluntary markets should be used for beyond value chain mitigation but cannot be counted toward a non-state actor’s interim emissions reductions required by its net zero pathway.”
So, no credit for companies’ voluntary net-zero plans – as ETA allows for some Scope 3 emissions.
For Bill Hare, head of the think tank Climate Analytics and HLEG member, the US plan means that “John Kerry’s proposal is that companies would not actually have to reduce emissions if they buy offsets.” Simply unacceptable from the world’s largest carbon emitter.
“A voluntary carbon credit program will not guarantee deep, real cuts in emissions,” said Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
And Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary at the German development ministry, also sees Kerry’s proposal “with a certain skepticism.” He said it was “very important that we do not in any way want to shirk our own commitment to funding for our JETP partners [for the international energy transition]. There would also be a lot of issues to work out about how to ensure the integrity of the voluntary carbon market.”
In fact, ETA resembles the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which, under the Kyoto Protocol, allowed companies to purchase carbon credits if they invested in climate protection in developing countries. However, this did not apply to voluntary markets, but to the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The criticism was that the CDM program hardly contributed to global climate protection.
The HLEG report sets high standards for companies and market players to prevent greenwashing (Climate Table reported). After seven months of intensive debate, the 17 international experts of the panel, which Guterres personally appointed, came up with ten recommendations. Actors who want to prevent greenwashing in climate protection should, among other things:
At the event, Guterres stressed “Zero tolerance for greenwashing.” The event at COP was attended by many heads of UN agencies and “climate champions” to increase the political weight of the demand – well aware that John Kerry would make his ETA proposal the following day.
Responding to the criticism, Kerry said, “We shouldn’t let the mistakes of the past keep us from employing a powerful tool for steering private capital where it is most needed.” The US climate envoy is driven by a very real fear: The growing influence of Republicans after the US midterms could set US international climate financing even further back.
As the world’s largest economy and largest historical emitter of carbon dioxide, the United States already only contributes about 8 billion dollars annually toward the promised 100 billion dollars in climate aid – although a fair share would probably be closer to 40 billion.
If Republicans in the US Congress were to block further payments, the Biden administration could no longer act in this area and its position in the UN negotiations is weakened. While some billions in private funds from the ETA process would not count toward the official US quota, Kerry could argue that private US money is helping with the global energy transition. with Reuters
China wants to reach the emissions peak “before 2030”. Xi Jinping announced this over two years ago. But neither an exact date nor a target mark for carbon emissions was specified. When it comes to major milestones, the People’s Republic has always set targets that it can definitely achieve – and usually exceeds. Missing growth targets would damage the reputation of the all-dominant Communist Party far more than it would damage the reputation of parties and governments in democratic states. There is much pointing to an earlier carbon peak.
The People’s Republic has massively expanded renewables in recent years. And the provinces want to further step up the pace:
According to calculations by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), China’s additional electricity consumption between 2020 and 2025 can be covered by this rapid expansion of renewables if electricity consumption does not rise above 4 percent.
However, there is also a risk that renewables and coal plants will compete even more in the future. “There will definitely be competition for market share between coal and clean energy,” Myllyvirta says. “As the operating hours of coal plants decrease, owners will increasingly try to slow down the expansion of renewables.” Coal still accounts for 63 percent of the electricity mix and 60 percent of the energy mix.
This is why activists from Greenpeace East Asia are not as optimistic. “It is clear that carbon emissions in China’s energy sector will continue to rise in the coming years,” says Wu Jinghan, who works in Beijing. Due to the electrification of more industrial sectors and economic growth, electricity demand will continue to grow, she adds. And yet, “We expect China’s power sector to reach peak emissions before 2025,” Wu says.
In the past, China has relied massively on the construction sector for its growth. Never before in world history have so many roads, train connections and entire cities been built from scratch in such a short time. But most recently, the industry has presented climate plans (China.Table reported):
“It’s quite possible that emissions for cement and building materials have already peaked,” says CREA’s Xinyi Shen. That is due to increased energy efficiency in the sector coupled with declining demand for building materials. An early emissions peak in this sector would be significant, as it is the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
But this, too, should be taken with a grain of salt. In early November, the government issued an implementation plan for the building materials industry’s carbon targets. It states:
Some analysts predict that the construction industry will pursue its own targets regardless. But the less ambitious targets from the top give leeway and take some pressure off. And the past shows that emissions from the construction sector can also rise again quickly: “In 2015, China’s emissions fell. At the time, it was mainly due to economic factors,” says Byford Tsang of climate think tank E3G. “A slow real estate sector and supply-side reform of heavy industry to reduce inefficient overcapacity were responsible at the time.”
The Covid crisis and the ailing real estate sector contributed to China’s falling emissions in the last four quarters. Both the central government and the provinces have announced large stimulus programs to boost growth. In the past, this often led to a sharp rise in emissions because the programs tended to be very construction-heavy. This is different now:
“If the economic transition to “high-value growth” succeeds, the massive expansion of clean energy, will mean a peak in emissions soon,” says CREA’s Lauri Myllyvirta.
But even if China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, manages to stabilize emissions at a peak or even slowly reduce them in the next few years, there is little reason for climate optimism. After all, China’s climate targets are not in line with the Paris Agreement. This requires stepping up climate ambitions. To still reach the Paris climate targets, the People’s Republic would have to cut the share of coal-fired power to 35 percent by 2030, according to calculations by the Climate Action Tracker. Before 2040, China should no longer use any coal at all for power generation, the experts calculate. This means that the expansion of renewables must be kept at a constant high level. This requires an annual increase of 150 to 200 gigawatts.
Without civil society, there would have been no Paris Agreement, said Jennifer Morgan, State Secretary at the German Foreign Office, on Tuesday on the sidelines of an event in the German pavilion at COP27. But that very civil society is taking a beating in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The development organization Germanwatch reports “human rights violations and gross restrictions on parts of civil society” around COP27. “From arbitrary detentions to surveillance to further hurdles for climate and human rights activists – all this is happening here in the context of COP,” says Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch.
Even before the conference started, activists from Egypt and abroad had already been arrested. Ajit Rajagopal from India attempted to walk from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh to draw attention to the climate crisis. He was detained at a security checkpoint because his protest had not been registered. He was only released in response to international pressure. According to Human Rights Watch, cabs in Sharm el-Sheikh were also outfitted with cameras, and reports claim that the official COP27 app allows for extensive surveillance via cell phone.
But even those who register protests in the area around COP are by no means free of restrictions. All protests must be registered with the Egyptian authorities 36 hours in advance and may only be held in a designated area between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. This area is not within earshot of the delegates, but rather a bus ride away from the main COP venue in the so-called Green Zone. Those who register a protest must disclose personal information to the authorities. Participants must undergo rigorous security checks. So it is no wonder, then, that the number of protests at the COP has been limited so far. Only a handful of smaller protests have been seen.
A large number of NGOs, including BUND, NABU and Germanwatch, also complained about last-minute cancellations of their hotel reservation and unannounced surcharges of over 500 USD per night upon arrival. In some cases, travelers have been asked to pay extra or to sign that they will not attend the COP and that instead check in as a tourist.
The hotels cite regulations made especially for COP by Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism. “Such measures lead to massive restrictions on the participation opportunities,” writes Germanwatch. A large part of African civil society is thus effectively excluded. Many COP participants also criticize the horrendous prices for drinks and food at the COP venue.
A recent case of human rights abuses in Egypt is generating particular attention at the COP: Egyptian-British blogger and human rights activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been in prison almost continuously since 2013. He was involved in organizing the 2011 Arab Spring mass protests and later criticized Egypt’s current ruler Abd al-Fattah as-Sisi. Most recently, he was arrested in 2019 and sentenced in 2021, for “spreading false information.”
Fattah has been on hunger strike for more than 200 days, and since the start of the COP on Sunday, he has also been refusing to drink water. During the high-level segment, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron and Rishi Sunak demanded the release of the activist, whose life is in imminent danger. On site at COP, his sister Sanaa Seif most recently drew attention to his situation and received unintentional support from pro-regime Egyptian politicians.
During a press conference held by Seif and other human rights activists on Tuesday, an Egyptian member of parliament intervened and verbally attacked Seif. He said her brother was an Egyptian citizen and had broken Egyptian law. So why is she trying to build pressure by drawing international attention, he asked. Seif, visibly shaken yet calm, explained that there had been no fair trial and pointed to his British citizenship. However, as the MEP refused to back down and shouted at Seif in Arabic, he was removed from the courtroom by security guards.
Outside the hall, there was another clash between other regime loyalists and Sanaa Seif in the middle of a crowd of journalists. The Egyptian government camp could hardly have created more publicity for the case. Further actions are also planned on the COP grounds in the coming days.
Luisa Neubauer of Fridays for Future therefore did not hold back on her criticism of the host: “We are meeting in a dictatorship where people are negotiating climate justice while thousands of people are imprisoned in Egypt.” The issue of human rights in a country where virtually no human right is not being violated must therefore be the main focus, Neubauer said.
Despite calls for Fattah’s release by European politicians, his situation does not seem to change for the time being. A senior EU official told Climate.Table on Wednesday that they have not yet been able to raise the issue with the Egyptian delegation. There are a number of issues they want to discuss, he said, and Fattah’s case is definitely one of them. The official also expressed concern about the situation of NGOs and activists at COP, but said that nothing could be said yet about possible consequences for the negotiations with the Egyptian delegation. Before any consideration could be given to this, he said, the other side would first have to be heard.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General at Amnesty International, called for more attention to human rights during climate negotiations. This would apply especially to regimes such as host Egypt, for example, if they call for compensation from industrialized countries for loss and damage in the Global South. Funds for loss and damage without a guarantee to uphold human rights is a blank check for more oppression, Callamard said. With Alexandra Endres
When a Dutch sustainability organization and almost 900 Dutch residents sued their government over its climate targets and won, it made global headlines. A glimmer of hope appeared: was it possible for courts to break the climate governance gridlock? Or was this simply an anomalous case reserved for the progressive pastures of the Netherlands?
Looking back it’s clear: that ruling marked the beginning of a new era. An era of heightened accountability, in which governments that fail to protect the rights of their people are made to answer before courts. Over 80 cases have now been filed against governments in all corners of the world – from Pakistan, to Colombia, to South Korea and Australia. And they are winning: numerous courts have recognized that climate action isn’t a choice, but a legal duty.
Imagine you drove recklessly down the road, putting yourself and others at risk. If you caused an accident, you would be held liable: after all, you powered ahead knowing the potential consequences. Governments – particularly those from the Global North – are doing much the same by knowingly failing to take immediate action on climate change. Like reckless drivers, they should be held to account.
That’s how the District Court saw the Dutch Government’s responsibility in the Urgenda case in 2015. The court found that, “[d]ue to the severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of hazardous climate change occurring, without mitigation measures”, the Dutch Government has a duty to do “its part” by further reducing its emissions to protect its people from climate harms.
Of course, the source of a government’s legal duty to take climate action depends on the legal system in which it operates. But there are some obvious factors that point to its existence.
Governments might be recklessly driving us towards an unliveable future. But the movement of climate litigation injects hope: accountability is here. What started as a single climate case against the Dutch Government has turned into a global climate litigation movement powered by affected communities, and supported by lawyers and campaigners around the world.
Current litigation trends show that governments should “anticipate the emergence of a legal duty” and act to protect their people. Each case builds on those before it, and creates footholds for future cases. Take the legal challenge by Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai, from the Torres Strait Islands, who are suing the Australian Government in a case inspired by the Dutch Urgenda case. With sea levels rising, they risk losing everything: their language, culture, identity, Country.
The two First Nation leaders are hoping for a win, like in last year’s Neubauer case – which saw German lawmakers ordered to increase their climate targets in order to protect the younger generation’s “fundamental freedoms”. That decision prompted a swift reaction by the government with a 10 percent increase in its 2030 mitigation target.
The message ahead of COP27 is clear: countries that continue to drive us over the limits of a safe future will be served. In the lead-up to the next UN climate summit, we joined forces with lawyers and plaintiffs around the world to send a message to governments: “If you fail to raise ambition, we will continue to turn to the courts to demand accountability”. With so much on the line, there’s no time to lose.
Lucy Maxwell and Sarah Mead are lawyers specializing in international, environmental and public international law. Together they head the Climate Litigation Network.
“COP27 can help correct climate injustices in Africa,” says Mohamed Adow. The founder and director of the think tank Power Shift Africa is a fighter for the continent’s climate interests. Whether the climate conference in Egypt is a success depends largely on whether more money for climate adaptation and repairing climate-related damage flows from rich to poorer countries, Adow believes.
This is because the wealthy countries have a climate debt: “Africa is home to 17 percent of the world’s population, but we only account for less than four percent of the global emissions. But if you look up on historic terms we only account for 0.5 percent of the emissions. But we’re the most affected by climate change, we’re suffering fast and worst, largely because of the emission from the rich world,” Adow lamented in September at the African media conference in the run-up to COP27.
Indeed, Africa is particularly affected by the global climate crisis. According to a World Meteorological Organization report on the state of Africa’s climate, drought and flooding are the most pressing problems. Over the past 50 years, drought disasters in the region have claimed more than half a million lives and caused economic losses of more than $70 billion. During the same period, more than 1,000 flood-related disasters had been recorded.
Adow grew up in a cattle farming community in northern Kenya. He has experienced the effects of the climate crisis in his community firsthand, he told Foreign Affairs. “In 2000, a drought killed much of my father’s cattle herd and destroyed our neighbors’ livelihoods.” In northern Kenya, droughts used to happen once every decade, but their frequency and severity have increased. Adow founded Power Shift Africa to advance climate action in Africa and change climate and energy policy toward carbon neutrality. He had previously led Christian Aid’s global climate policy and advocacy work for over a decade. He specialized in matters relating to the developing world and supported the organization’s advocacy work in Africa, Europe, and UN climate negotiations.
Adow argues that climate problems are closely linked to economic and social inequality. “The wealthy minority in the developed world have actually developed in part because the rest of us subsidized their development,” he criticizes bluntly. In order to combat climate change rapid decarbonization must be initiated. The expansion of fossil fuel production must be halted and a gradual phase-out introduced, Adow argues.
Adow is well-connected across the globe. He regularly writes opinion pieces for international media such as Al Jazeera and Nation Africa. In an article for the German newspaper Die Zeit, he criticized Germany and Italy for attempting to sign contracts with African countries for the supply of fossil fuels to become independent of Russian gas: “The gas agreements that Germany and Italy are seeking with African countries are downright ludicrous.”
The African population currently stands at about 1.4 billion people. Less than half of them have access to electricity, Adow said. There is a huge catching up to do in terms of electricity supply, he said. That does not make decarbonization attempts in Africa any easier. Adow calls on industrialized countries to support the continent’s nations in taking a leading role in renewable energy.
Adow stresses that Africa must develop its own transformation strategy. Greater independence in energy, food and economic matters is impossible if Africa remains only “part of someone’s else strategic vision whether it’s the US, EU, China or Russia.” Isabel Cuesta
John Kerry has set his sights on the money of corporations and big banks. The US climate czar presented an initiative for a carbon offset plan for companies – but it clashes with new UN anti-greenwashing proposals. Kerry’s intention is to use it to mobilize private funds for the energy transition and climate adaptation in the Global South. Sounds good – but there is a real risk that companies will simply buy their way out of their climate obligations, reports Bernhard Poetter.
At COP, many eyes are also on China, the world’s largest carbon emitter. The country expressed its willingness to participate in a mechanism to compensate for losses and damage, said Xie, China’s special envoy on climate change. This could be a door opener for the major polluters from the emerging countries to also bear a share of the costs of climate damage – and put the industrialized countries under greater pressure.
There are also new observations on emissions in the People’s Republic. Many things point to a carbon peak well before 2030: From new renewables expansion plans to a lack of provincial funding for fossil fuel stimulus programs. Is this reason for optimism? Only to a limited extent – because China’s climate targets are still not in line with the Paris Agreement. Therefore, efforts must be stepped up.
A current US initiative for voluntary trading of carbon credits for companies conflicts with new UN proposals against greenwashing. The US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, presented the “Energy Transition Accelerator” (ETA) instrument at COP27 on Wednesday.
It is designed to finance the energy transition in emerging countries with private capital from the USA in exchange for voluntary carbon credits. However, on the previous day, the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) of UN Secretary General António Guterres warned against such schemes.
Kerry’s proposal, which he made in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund: An “innovative partnership” to direct “private investment in comprehensive energy transition strategies” by 2030 or 2035. This means in detail:
The idea is to close the huge gap between the necessary and the planned investments in the restructuring of energy systems, adaptation to climate change and nature conservation. Just the day before, a group of experts from the British and Egyptian COP presidencies calculated that a trillion dollars would be needed in 2025 – roughly twice the current funding (Climate Table reported).
According to ETA, participating companies can also use the credits to address a “limited portion of Scope 3 emissions” (Carbon emissions from supply chain and product use) “within a company’s near-term target.”
However, this conflicts with the recommendations of the UN expert panel HLEG. The group presented its final report at COP on Tuesday with UN chief Guterres. The report points to the risk of misleading climate promises (“greenwashing”) by companies and other non-state actors.
Specifically, it says, “High integrity carbon credits in voluntary markets should be used for beyond value chain mitigation but cannot be counted toward a non-state actor’s interim emissions reductions required by its net zero pathway.”
So, no credit for companies’ voluntary net-zero plans – as ETA allows for some Scope 3 emissions.
For Bill Hare, head of the think tank Climate Analytics and HLEG member, the US plan means that “John Kerry’s proposal is that companies would not actually have to reduce emissions if they buy offsets.” Simply unacceptable from the world’s largest carbon emitter.
“A voluntary carbon credit program will not guarantee deep, real cuts in emissions,” said Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
And Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary at the German development ministry, also sees Kerry’s proposal “with a certain skepticism.” He said it was “very important that we do not in any way want to shirk our own commitment to funding for our JETP partners [for the international energy transition]. There would also be a lot of issues to work out about how to ensure the integrity of the voluntary carbon market.”
In fact, ETA resembles the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which, under the Kyoto Protocol, allowed companies to purchase carbon credits if they invested in climate protection in developing countries. However, this did not apply to voluntary markets, but to the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The criticism was that the CDM program hardly contributed to global climate protection.
The HLEG report sets high standards for companies and market players to prevent greenwashing (Climate Table reported). After seven months of intensive debate, the 17 international experts of the panel, which Guterres personally appointed, came up with ten recommendations. Actors who want to prevent greenwashing in climate protection should, among other things:
At the event, Guterres stressed “Zero tolerance for greenwashing.” The event at COP was attended by many heads of UN agencies and “climate champions” to increase the political weight of the demand – well aware that John Kerry would make his ETA proposal the following day.
Responding to the criticism, Kerry said, “We shouldn’t let the mistakes of the past keep us from employing a powerful tool for steering private capital where it is most needed.” The US climate envoy is driven by a very real fear: The growing influence of Republicans after the US midterms could set US international climate financing even further back.
As the world’s largest economy and largest historical emitter of carbon dioxide, the United States already only contributes about 8 billion dollars annually toward the promised 100 billion dollars in climate aid – although a fair share would probably be closer to 40 billion.
If Republicans in the US Congress were to block further payments, the Biden administration could no longer act in this area and its position in the UN negotiations is weakened. While some billions in private funds from the ETA process would not count toward the official US quota, Kerry could argue that private US money is helping with the global energy transition. with Reuters
China wants to reach the emissions peak “before 2030”. Xi Jinping announced this over two years ago. But neither an exact date nor a target mark for carbon emissions was specified. When it comes to major milestones, the People’s Republic has always set targets that it can definitely achieve – and usually exceeds. Missing growth targets would damage the reputation of the all-dominant Communist Party far more than it would damage the reputation of parties and governments in democratic states. There is much pointing to an earlier carbon peak.
The People’s Republic has massively expanded renewables in recent years. And the provinces want to further step up the pace:
According to calculations by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), China’s additional electricity consumption between 2020 and 2025 can be covered by this rapid expansion of renewables if electricity consumption does not rise above 4 percent.
However, there is also a risk that renewables and coal plants will compete even more in the future. “There will definitely be competition for market share between coal and clean energy,” Myllyvirta says. “As the operating hours of coal plants decrease, owners will increasingly try to slow down the expansion of renewables.” Coal still accounts for 63 percent of the electricity mix and 60 percent of the energy mix.
This is why activists from Greenpeace East Asia are not as optimistic. “It is clear that carbon emissions in China’s energy sector will continue to rise in the coming years,” says Wu Jinghan, who works in Beijing. Due to the electrification of more industrial sectors and economic growth, electricity demand will continue to grow, she adds. And yet, “We expect China’s power sector to reach peak emissions before 2025,” Wu says.
In the past, China has relied massively on the construction sector for its growth. Never before in world history have so many roads, train connections and entire cities been built from scratch in such a short time. But most recently, the industry has presented climate plans (China.Table reported):
“It’s quite possible that emissions for cement and building materials have already peaked,” says CREA’s Xinyi Shen. That is due to increased energy efficiency in the sector coupled with declining demand for building materials. An early emissions peak in this sector would be significant, as it is the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
But this, too, should be taken with a grain of salt. In early November, the government issued an implementation plan for the building materials industry’s carbon targets. It states:
Some analysts predict that the construction industry will pursue its own targets regardless. But the less ambitious targets from the top give leeway and take some pressure off. And the past shows that emissions from the construction sector can also rise again quickly: “In 2015, China’s emissions fell. At the time, it was mainly due to economic factors,” says Byford Tsang of climate think tank E3G. “A slow real estate sector and supply-side reform of heavy industry to reduce inefficient overcapacity were responsible at the time.”
The Covid crisis and the ailing real estate sector contributed to China’s falling emissions in the last four quarters. Both the central government and the provinces have announced large stimulus programs to boost growth. In the past, this often led to a sharp rise in emissions because the programs tended to be very construction-heavy. This is different now:
“If the economic transition to “high-value growth” succeeds, the massive expansion of clean energy, will mean a peak in emissions soon,” says CREA’s Lauri Myllyvirta.
But even if China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, manages to stabilize emissions at a peak or even slowly reduce them in the next few years, there is little reason for climate optimism. After all, China’s climate targets are not in line with the Paris Agreement. This requires stepping up climate ambitions. To still reach the Paris climate targets, the People’s Republic would have to cut the share of coal-fired power to 35 percent by 2030, according to calculations by the Climate Action Tracker. Before 2040, China should no longer use any coal at all for power generation, the experts calculate. This means that the expansion of renewables must be kept at a constant high level. This requires an annual increase of 150 to 200 gigawatts.
Without civil society, there would have been no Paris Agreement, said Jennifer Morgan, State Secretary at the German Foreign Office, on Tuesday on the sidelines of an event in the German pavilion at COP27. But that very civil society is taking a beating in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The development organization Germanwatch reports “human rights violations and gross restrictions on parts of civil society” around COP27. “From arbitrary detentions to surveillance to further hurdles for climate and human rights activists – all this is happening here in the context of COP,” says Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch.
Even before the conference started, activists from Egypt and abroad had already been arrested. Ajit Rajagopal from India attempted to walk from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh to draw attention to the climate crisis. He was detained at a security checkpoint because his protest had not been registered. He was only released in response to international pressure. According to Human Rights Watch, cabs in Sharm el-Sheikh were also outfitted with cameras, and reports claim that the official COP27 app allows for extensive surveillance via cell phone.
But even those who register protests in the area around COP are by no means free of restrictions. All protests must be registered with the Egyptian authorities 36 hours in advance and may only be held in a designated area between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. This area is not within earshot of the delegates, but rather a bus ride away from the main COP venue in the so-called Green Zone. Those who register a protest must disclose personal information to the authorities. Participants must undergo rigorous security checks. So it is no wonder, then, that the number of protests at the COP has been limited so far. Only a handful of smaller protests have been seen.
A large number of NGOs, including BUND, NABU and Germanwatch, also complained about last-minute cancellations of their hotel reservation and unannounced surcharges of over 500 USD per night upon arrival. In some cases, travelers have been asked to pay extra or to sign that they will not attend the COP and that instead check in as a tourist.
The hotels cite regulations made especially for COP by Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism. “Such measures lead to massive restrictions on the participation opportunities,” writes Germanwatch. A large part of African civil society is thus effectively excluded. Many COP participants also criticize the horrendous prices for drinks and food at the COP venue.
A recent case of human rights abuses in Egypt is generating particular attention at the COP: Egyptian-British blogger and human rights activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been in prison almost continuously since 2013. He was involved in organizing the 2011 Arab Spring mass protests and later criticized Egypt’s current ruler Abd al-Fattah as-Sisi. Most recently, he was arrested in 2019 and sentenced in 2021, for “spreading false information.”
Fattah has been on hunger strike for more than 200 days, and since the start of the COP on Sunday, he has also been refusing to drink water. During the high-level segment, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron and Rishi Sunak demanded the release of the activist, whose life is in imminent danger. On site at COP, his sister Sanaa Seif most recently drew attention to his situation and received unintentional support from pro-regime Egyptian politicians.
During a press conference held by Seif and other human rights activists on Tuesday, an Egyptian member of parliament intervened and verbally attacked Seif. He said her brother was an Egyptian citizen and had broken Egyptian law. So why is she trying to build pressure by drawing international attention, he asked. Seif, visibly shaken yet calm, explained that there had been no fair trial and pointed to his British citizenship. However, as the MEP refused to back down and shouted at Seif in Arabic, he was removed from the courtroom by security guards.
Outside the hall, there was another clash between other regime loyalists and Sanaa Seif in the middle of a crowd of journalists. The Egyptian government camp could hardly have created more publicity for the case. Further actions are also planned on the COP grounds in the coming days.
Luisa Neubauer of Fridays for Future therefore did not hold back on her criticism of the host: “We are meeting in a dictatorship where people are negotiating climate justice while thousands of people are imprisoned in Egypt.” The issue of human rights in a country where virtually no human right is not being violated must therefore be the main focus, Neubauer said.
Despite calls for Fattah’s release by European politicians, his situation does not seem to change for the time being. A senior EU official told Climate.Table on Wednesday that they have not yet been able to raise the issue with the Egyptian delegation. There are a number of issues they want to discuss, he said, and Fattah’s case is definitely one of them. The official also expressed concern about the situation of NGOs and activists at COP, but said that nothing could be said yet about possible consequences for the negotiations with the Egyptian delegation. Before any consideration could be given to this, he said, the other side would first have to be heard.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General at Amnesty International, called for more attention to human rights during climate negotiations. This would apply especially to regimes such as host Egypt, for example, if they call for compensation from industrialized countries for loss and damage in the Global South. Funds for loss and damage without a guarantee to uphold human rights is a blank check for more oppression, Callamard said. With Alexandra Endres
When a Dutch sustainability organization and almost 900 Dutch residents sued their government over its climate targets and won, it made global headlines. A glimmer of hope appeared: was it possible for courts to break the climate governance gridlock? Or was this simply an anomalous case reserved for the progressive pastures of the Netherlands?
Looking back it’s clear: that ruling marked the beginning of a new era. An era of heightened accountability, in which governments that fail to protect the rights of their people are made to answer before courts. Over 80 cases have now been filed against governments in all corners of the world – from Pakistan, to Colombia, to South Korea and Australia. And they are winning: numerous courts have recognized that climate action isn’t a choice, but a legal duty.
Imagine you drove recklessly down the road, putting yourself and others at risk. If you caused an accident, you would be held liable: after all, you powered ahead knowing the potential consequences. Governments – particularly those from the Global North – are doing much the same by knowingly failing to take immediate action on climate change. Like reckless drivers, they should be held to account.
That’s how the District Court saw the Dutch Government’s responsibility in the Urgenda case in 2015. The court found that, “[d]ue to the severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of hazardous climate change occurring, without mitigation measures”, the Dutch Government has a duty to do “its part” by further reducing its emissions to protect its people from climate harms.
Of course, the source of a government’s legal duty to take climate action depends on the legal system in which it operates. But there are some obvious factors that point to its existence.
Governments might be recklessly driving us towards an unliveable future. But the movement of climate litigation injects hope: accountability is here. What started as a single climate case against the Dutch Government has turned into a global climate litigation movement powered by affected communities, and supported by lawyers and campaigners around the world.
Current litigation trends show that governments should “anticipate the emergence of a legal duty” and act to protect their people. Each case builds on those before it, and creates footholds for future cases. Take the legal challenge by Uncle Paul and Uncle Pabai, from the Torres Strait Islands, who are suing the Australian Government in a case inspired by the Dutch Urgenda case. With sea levels rising, they risk losing everything: their language, culture, identity, Country.
The two First Nation leaders are hoping for a win, like in last year’s Neubauer case – which saw German lawmakers ordered to increase their climate targets in order to protect the younger generation’s “fundamental freedoms”. That decision prompted a swift reaction by the government with a 10 percent increase in its 2030 mitigation target.
The message ahead of COP27 is clear: countries that continue to drive us over the limits of a safe future will be served. In the lead-up to the next UN climate summit, we joined forces with lawyers and plaintiffs around the world to send a message to governments: “If you fail to raise ambition, we will continue to turn to the courts to demand accountability”. With so much on the line, there’s no time to lose.
Lucy Maxwell and Sarah Mead are lawyers specializing in international, environmental and public international law. Together they head the Climate Litigation Network.
“COP27 can help correct climate injustices in Africa,” says Mohamed Adow. The founder and director of the think tank Power Shift Africa is a fighter for the continent’s climate interests. Whether the climate conference in Egypt is a success depends largely on whether more money for climate adaptation and repairing climate-related damage flows from rich to poorer countries, Adow believes.
This is because the wealthy countries have a climate debt: “Africa is home to 17 percent of the world’s population, but we only account for less than four percent of the global emissions. But if you look up on historic terms we only account for 0.5 percent of the emissions. But we’re the most affected by climate change, we’re suffering fast and worst, largely because of the emission from the rich world,” Adow lamented in September at the African media conference in the run-up to COP27.
Indeed, Africa is particularly affected by the global climate crisis. According to a World Meteorological Organization report on the state of Africa’s climate, drought and flooding are the most pressing problems. Over the past 50 years, drought disasters in the region have claimed more than half a million lives and caused economic losses of more than $70 billion. During the same period, more than 1,000 flood-related disasters had been recorded.
Adow grew up in a cattle farming community in northern Kenya. He has experienced the effects of the climate crisis in his community firsthand, he told Foreign Affairs. “In 2000, a drought killed much of my father’s cattle herd and destroyed our neighbors’ livelihoods.” In northern Kenya, droughts used to happen once every decade, but their frequency and severity have increased. Adow founded Power Shift Africa to advance climate action in Africa and change climate and energy policy toward carbon neutrality. He had previously led Christian Aid’s global climate policy and advocacy work for over a decade. He specialized in matters relating to the developing world and supported the organization’s advocacy work in Africa, Europe, and UN climate negotiations.
Adow argues that climate problems are closely linked to economic and social inequality. “The wealthy minority in the developed world have actually developed in part because the rest of us subsidized their development,” he criticizes bluntly. In order to combat climate change rapid decarbonization must be initiated. The expansion of fossil fuel production must be halted and a gradual phase-out introduced, Adow argues.
Adow is well-connected across the globe. He regularly writes opinion pieces for international media such as Al Jazeera and Nation Africa. In an article for the German newspaper Die Zeit, he criticized Germany and Italy for attempting to sign contracts with African countries for the supply of fossil fuels to become independent of Russian gas: “The gas agreements that Germany and Italy are seeking with African countries are downright ludicrous.”
The African population currently stands at about 1.4 billion people. Less than half of them have access to electricity, Adow said. There is a huge catching up to do in terms of electricity supply, he said. That does not make decarbonization attempts in Africa any easier. Adow calls on industrialized countries to support the continent’s nations in taking a leading role in renewable energy.
Adow stresses that Africa must develop its own transformation strategy. Greater independence in energy, food and economic matters is impossible if Africa remains only “part of someone’s else strategic vision whether it’s the US, EU, China or Russia.” Isabel Cuesta
