GFANZ, which made international headlines and represented one of the planet’s best hopes for meaningful climate action a year ago, is facing growing discontent within its membership of global banks, insurers, investment managers and consultants, and asset owners. The displeasure, especially by large North American banks, threatens to rupture the increasingly fragile alliance.

“Those are some of the biggest players on Wall Street, and if they leave does that cause some kind of domino effect, giving the impetus to other parties to say, ‘Hey, if they left why can’t I leave?” says Baltej Sidhu, an analyst with National Bank of Canada, in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England (and Canada) established GFANZ with billionaire Michael Bloomberg at the COP26 UN climate summit last November in Glasgow. Under the initiative, more than 400 financial institutions from 45 countries managing assets of US$130 trillion agreed to the goal of net-zero portfolio emissions by 2050, as well as interim CO2 reductions. 

But in the last 12 months, there has been heavy criticism over the lack of climate action by GFANZ’s leading members, most notably U.S. and Canadian banks and large investment managers. 

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, the co-founder of sustainable investment firm Generation Asset Management, tells Bloomberg the commitments by GFANZ members are “very welcome,” but “it’s become apparent that some who made impressive pledges did not immediately begin to put in place a practical plan to fulfill those pledges.”

While a potential rupture in the membership could weaken the massive global alliance, some insiders and critics say this could be a good thing.

Those are some of the biggest players on Wall Street, and if they leave does that cause some kind of domino effect?

-Baltej Sidhu, an analyst with National Bank of Canada

James Vaccaro, a former renewables banker who sits on GFANZ’s advisory board, says the departure of “quarter-hearted” members would “unlock a little more enthusiasm and energy from those who do want to race to the top.” 

This is a sentiment shared by Richard Brooks, climate finance director for Stand.earth, a climate- and forest-protection NGO.

“Good riddance,” Brooks tweeted about the disaffected banks. “If you [departing signatories] won’t meet minimum standards in line with the climate science and bodies like the [International Energy Agency] who said we don’t need new fossil fuel infrastructure, then quit and stop ruining these bodies for other banks who are taking responsibility.”

Matthew Kiernan, who has been involved in sustainable finance since the early 1990s, says the huge influx of mainstream finance into ESG (environmental, social and governance issues) in recent years has diluted its meaning, and only about half the assets tagged by networks like GFANZ and the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) fit the sustainability label.

“I’d guesstimate that only 50 to 60% of the $100-plus trillion in sustainable assets under management claimed by the PRI could reasonably be called ‘sustainable’ by any remotely rigorous definition of the term,” says Kiernan, who co-founded Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, which became part of the massive ESG rating service of MSCI. “Greenwashing is truly a clear and present danger.”

Earlier this year, Race to Zero, a grassroots network established to oversee bodies making net-zero commitments under UN rules, upped the ante for the GFANZ signatories, establishing a rule that signatories would not be able to finance any more coal projects or unabated oil and gas projects and they would need to plan to phase down unabated fossil fuel portfolio emissions. 

“We want to be unequivocal on this point: there is no rationale for financing new coal projects,” Carney and Bloomberg said in a joint statement, endorsing the Race to Zero ban on coal investments. 

While Race to Zero has subsequently loosened the criteria to give institutions more flexibility, Fiona Macklin, Race to Zero’s campaign manager,  asserts that the amended rules still require members to phase down and phase out all unabated fossil fuels, including coal.

If you won’t meet minimum standards in line with the climate science… then quit and stop ruining these bodies for other banks who are taking responsibility.

-Richard Brooks, climate finance director for Stand.earth

The Race to Zero rules caused two pension funds – Australia’s Cbus and Austria’s Bundespensionskasse AG – to leave the alliance, saying they lacked the internal resources to continue. U.S.-based investment consultant Meketa has also left GFANZ, according to Capital Monitor.

A number of U.S. banks, including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, threatened to leave the alliance, citing risks of lawsuits under Securities and Exchange Commission rules if they are also required to meet the stringent Race to Zero policies. The European Central Bank also noted that GFANZ commitments raise a risk of lawsuits against banks if they make the pledges and fail to deliver. 

Although unnamed, a group of Canadian banks have also threatened to leave GFANZ, according to The Globe and Mail, quoting anonymous sources saying the banks have legal concerns, as well as fundamental issues with the requirement to withdraw funding from fossil fuel companies.

Brooks says many of the GFANZ signatories never intended to live up to their commitments.

“They signed up as a defensive tactic to buy them some green cover that comes with being associated with Mark Carney, anything called net-zero and a peer group,” he says via email. “It’s a classic duck and seek cover amongst ‘friends’ response.”

Kiernan argues that climate action must move from voluntary commitments to regulatory and legal requirements, a point underlined recently by a group of Canadian NGOs in a public policy roadmap on climate regulation for financial institutions.

Kiernan envisions a smaller core of financial institutions making and keeping strong climate commitments voluntarily, while the larger pool of financial institutions would be required to reduce emissions through regulation.

“In the end what we need is government regulation with consequences,” says Brooks, adding this will be encouraged by investor-driven lawsuits against banks failing to meet their climate pledges.

“I think the goal should be to use some combination of pressure from asset owners, activists and regulators to force the laggards to either raise their game or quit making duplicitous claims about the sustainability of their investment processes and products,” says Kiernan. “My distinct preference would be for the former.” 

Eugene Ellmen is a former executive director of the Canadian Social Investment Organization (now Responsible Investment Association). He writes on sustainable business and finance.

The post Cracks showing in Mark Carney’s net-zero financial alliance appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The great pioneers of biodiversity, Thomas Lovejoy and E.O. “Antman” Wilson, and the heroic healer Archbishop Desmond Tutu, whose devotion to universal dignity and sheer willpower helped steer South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement to democracy, died in late December.

Despite living with their eyes (or eye in the case of Wilson, who partly lost his vision in a fishing accident) wide open for a combined 262 years in the belly of racial and rainforest carnage, these three wise men never lost hope in our ability to choose a brighter tomorrow.

Thankfully, for the first time in my life, the world’s most powerful business and political leaders are now all on record vowing to work toward a brighter tomorrow for the planet.

Financial firms have pledged that more than US$130 trillion of assets will be net-zero by 2050. And 130 countries have also promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, including all the G7 countries and South Africa. Brazil, Russia and China have pledged to be net-zero by 2060, and India, which is at an earlier stage of industrial development, by 2070.

These pledges should not be underestimated. Nobody wants their word to mean nothing, least of all heads of state and CEOs.

Nevertheless it happens quite often: what Swedish activist Greta Thunberg calls “blah, blah, blah.”

There are still many powerful defenders of the status quo who will work hard to delay governments from following through
on their pledges.

We get beyond “blah, blah, blah” when we consider what’s happened in the last century and ask one simple question: are we going in the right direction fast enough to get to where we want to be in the future? If the answer is no, we need to make it yes everywhere we have influence.

For businesses, that includes our direct operations, and it also includes Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that result from a company’s supply chains and use of its products), which are an order of magnitude larger. And most critically, it includes what the non-profit Influence Map has termed Scope 4 emissions, the greenhouse gas implications of a corporation’s government lobbying.

There are still many powerful defenders of the status quo who will work hard to delay governments from following through on their pledges. It serves nothing, least of all the planet, to demonize these forces; instead we must counteract and co-opt them. The forces of economic gravity have flipped demonstrably in favour of clean solutions (as borne out by the widening financial outperformance of the Global 100 Index against its blue-chip benchmark).

It is heartening to see most corporate net-zero pledges clearly stating they don’t want to be left hanging, with words to the effect of “My organization makes this commitment with the expectation that governments will follow through on their own net-zero commitments to ensure that the goals of the Paris Agreement are met.”

What is the right speed? Johan Rockström, who leads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has proposed a solution for the global economy to rapidly reduce carbon emissions, a “carbon law” that would cut emissions in half every decade (and would apply to cities, nations and industrial sectors). Rockström and his colleagues believe this could catalyze disruptive innovation in a similar way to what Moore’s law has done for the computer industry.

The pandemic has also illustrated the awesome power we have as a modern society to innovate and deploy solutions when we fear for our lives. We should hang on to that ambition for climate action and push for it with all our might, as the great Tutu did in the face of what seemed like insurmountable challenges in his lifetime. After all, as the late archbishop once said, “Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness.”

The post Editor’s note: Lessons of giants will bring us to a greener future appeared first on Corporate Knights.

History’s verdict on COP26 will depend on how we all respond to its promise and its shortcomings. Whether we will act on its expressions of alarm and urgency or find ourselves trapped in its compromises and foot-dragging.

It will be up to all of us to ensure difficult decisions don’t give way to good intentions and greenwashing.

How to make sense of the voluminous and often conflicting narratives since the pact was finalized on Saturday? I’ll start with three basic points.

The accord achieved at COP26 is woefully inadequate given the target of limiting the increase in average global temperature to 1.5°C. Every 10th of a degree of the agreement’s insufficiency will mean additional suffering for hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people as well as intensifying species loss. Grieving for the planet on Twitter, Lauren Latour of Climate Action Network Canada described the Scottish city as “the Glasgow necropolis.” Environmental groups were discouraged by the insufficient ambition in national targets and the failure to urge the phase out of coal-fired power and subsidies for fossil fuel use.

And yet, it is amazing that 197 countries signed on to an agreement that is underpinned by fundamental climate science, acknowledges the need for urgent action, highlights the importance of nature in the fight, and commits everyone to do more, fast. In Policy Options, Velma McColl, principle at Earnscliffe Strategy Group, took an optimistic view while acknowledging the failings. The Glasgow summit, she wrote, shows we’re at “a tipping point where progress accelerates, [and] outcomes come faster than conservative estimates suggest.” 

The third point, and perhaps the most crucial one: To meet even the inadequate commitments from Glasgow, we will have to dramatically accelerate the job of aligning our public and private institutions, finances and procurement; our regulations and standards; our data collection and analysis; our consumer habits; our everything with a net-zero world. That includes a robust, well-funded effort to conserve and recover natural ecosystems that store carbon and serve as habitat for threatened species.

Without that work, the Glasgow climate pact’s demand that countries strengthen their 2030 targets by next year’s COP summit is meaningless.

Building a net-zero society represents an unprecedented challenge, greater even than the mobilization for the Second World War. However, Canadians have a responsibility, and a moral obligation, to lead. To put it another way: We have a sacred duty to care for Mother Earth and her children.

We need to hold collective feet to the fire, and we need to have zero tolerance for greenwashing. Data collection, transparency and accountability are key to ensuring that the “blah, blah, blah” – as Greta Thunberg called the high-level promises – results in a lifesaving transformation of our societies. 

There is an enormous responsibility on media organizations, civil society, academia and others to act as watchdogs and hold business and governments at all levels to account on their commitments.

While the Glasgow climate pact falls short of what is required, COP26 certainly provided momentum. It leaves us with some hope we can limit the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5°C, or at least well below 2°C.

Two leading groups, the International Energy Agency and Climate Action Tracker, concluded that if all the promises made by governments and business at Glasgow were fulfilled, we would be on course for 1.8°C of warming. 

We need to hold collective feet to the fire, and we need to have zero tolerance for greenwashing.

However, Climate Action Tracker calculated that the level of ambition in countries’ official 2030 targets is more consistent with a 2.4°C temperature increase by 2100. The group says that most countries are well off the pace for meeting their formal nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as the 2030 targets are known. 

The raft of other commitments made in Glasgow would bring us to 1.8°C, but they have less official weight and will be tougher to monitor. Of those, the biggest impact would come from the post-2030 emission reductions required for the net-zero targets announced by virtually all major emitting countries, with dates ranging from 2050 for the United States and Canada to 2070 for India.

The beginning of the Glasgow conference was like a pledge-a-palooza: countries and corporations made new promises to protect forests and nature, and to cut methane emissions, while leading companies in the financial industry committed to a 2050 target of net-zero emissions in their lending and investment portfolios.

To limit the prospects of greenwashing, all of those agreements and pledges will require new structures that ensure transparency and accountability, including the creation and dissemination of credible and comparable scientific and financial data.

Take, for example, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which, under the leadership of former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, brought together most of the world’s largest banks, insurance companies, pension funds and other asset managers. 

The alliance has no formal standing under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which runs transparency and accountability efforts arising from the Paris Agreement and now the Glasgow pact. Monitoring the alliance’s progress is outside the scope of the UNFCCC.

Under GFANZ, financial institutions made certain commitments, including establishing a 2030 target consistent with their goal of net-zero by 2050. They will also publish annually their emissions – both operational and those attributable to their financing business – in line with best practices. The GFANZ work will be taken up within media giant Bloomberg L.P. and will be co-chaired by founder (and former mayor of New York City) Michael Bloomberg and Mary Schapiro, former head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

To hold the banks and other financial institutions to account, we will need more comparable, transparent and consistent standards to measure emissions and carbon intensity. GFANZ will work with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) – a group created by the Financial Stability Board – to achieve those goals. However, every national government will have to drive the effort in their home markets.

Similarly, national net-zero commitments remain outside the ambit of UNFCCC, although the Glasgow agreement asks countries to come back next year with new 2030 targets that are more in line with those longer-term goals. At the same time, the Paris-based International Energy Agency says it will provide regular monitoring of countries’ progress toward their mid-century targets.

The transformation to a net-zero-emissions society will bring enormous change and uncertainty. It will entail myriad costs but also benefits, and we will need governments to ensure that the burdens and opportunities are fairly distributed.

However, it’s also clear that those costs and disruptions pale in comparison to the impacts that climate change itself will bring if the world can’t act with urgency to cap the increase in global temperatures.

The post Glasgow climate pledge-a-palooza needs unprecedented action to fulfill its promise appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Here’s mine: I’m pleasantly surprised at COP26’s success.

The most important thing that any public policy issue needs is a sense of momentum. It’s what bumps it up the political priority list. It’s what gives the public and decision-makers the feeling that progress is possible. And it’s what aligns disparate interests around that process of change.

After a week of announcements on issues ranging from coal phase-out to massive new corporate net-zero commitments to new protected areas, efforts to tackle climate change have undeniable momentum. 

What makes this COP different from many others is the fact it has produced actual plans. Over the past week, real roadmaps have emerged on how nations will meet their long-agreed targets. 

Significantly, these plans now encompass important areas of policy previously disconnected from the debate over how to deal with the climate crisis. 

For instance, an agreement announced this week that the EU and the U.S. will work together to “achieve the decarbonization of the global steel and aluminum industries,” including through the use of focused tariffs, means that climate change policy is now trade policy.

The unveiling of a multibillion-dollar partnership between the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany and the EU to help South Africa finance a quicker transition away from burning coal for energy means that climate policy is now foreign aid policy.

And the fact that a new international coalition of the world’s biggest financial companies has amassed up to US$130 trillion (yes, that’s “trillion” with a “t”) of private capital committed to hitting net-zero emissions targets by 2050 means that climate change policy is now economic policy.

As a result of these detailed new initiatives, the International Energy Agency quickly calculated this week that, if implemented, the sum total of new pledges would put the world on track for 1.8°C of warming: a total that is below 2°C for the first time and getting close to the agreed target of 1.5°C. 

The key phrase here is “if implemented.” Regardless of the agreements reached in Glasgow, countries can enact new global warming policies only through national legislation. So, when COP26 concludes at the end of the week, this is the necessary next step.

Canada has been a positive force here in Glasgow, launching numerous useful new initiatives and partnerships. And domestically, it’s all systems go for rapid progress. We are entering what may well be the most consequential period of carbon-reduction planning and action in our country’s history. We have a government that’s been re-elected with a detailed climate change platform. We have new ministers who are experienced and committed to progress on the climate change file. And we have a relatively new net-zero law at the federal level that mandates – by the end of December 2021 – that the federal government will deliver the country’s first 2030 carbon-emissions-reduction plan. The net-zero law is clear regarding what this plan must contain, namely: 

“The greenhouse-gas-emissions target for the year to which the plan relates; a description of the key emissions-reduction measures the Government of Canada intends to take to achieve its greenhouse-gas-emissions target; a description of any relevant sectoral strategies; and a description of emissions-reduction strategies for federal government operations.”

What’s clearer to me than ever after a week in Glasgow is that the carbon transition is spreading and it is accelerating. Gone are the days when, after brief spurts of activity at UN climate summits, everyone went home and little follow-through occurred. With the business community clearly deciding that climate change is something that they must wrestle with in order to ensure future prosperity and success, progress is going to proceed everywhere, regardless of the political cycle of the moment or the political party in power.

COP26 has produced inarguable evidence that carbon reduction is the new global political and economic imperative. It’s about time.

Rick Smith is the president of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices. He is attending COP26 in Glasgow.

The post How COP26 is making me believe that things are different this time appeared first on Corporate Knights.

This year’s negotiations are focused on securing more ambitious carbon-reduction pledges, or nationally determined contributions (NDCs, which must be ratcheted up every five years in line with the Paris Agreement). Earlier this year, Canada increased its NDC to cut emissions 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, up from the 2016 target of 30% below 2005. Canada’s plan for meeting its more aggressive NDC includes cutting energy waste, pricing carbon and decarbonizing transportation through zero-emissions vehicles, among other initiatives. This should significantly reduce energy demand and waste while boosting electrification of our economy with renewable energy production. However, my research on renewable energy transitions around the world suggests that for this plan to be cost-effective and successful, Canada will need to introduce policies that support the deployment of clusters of complementary low- and no-carbon technologies to the market.

Take Canada’s buildings, which are responsible for a large portion of the country’s emissions. Past building retrofitting efforts of EnerGuide for Houses and ecoEnergy programs provided incentives for multiple innovations, although homeowners tended to favour singular innovations, mainly natural gas furnace replacements. This yielded only about 20 to 30% average reductions of a building’s energy use. On the other hand, deep energy retrofits can achieve energy reductions of 50 to 80% through the clustering of technologies, such as insulation of basements, ceilings and walls; ventilation; and the adoption of new mechanical systems, such as heat pumps and solar panels for electricity and hot water. Clustering these technologies effectively drives down both energy use and costs of implementing building retrofits. 

Sources of renewable energy are often criticized for their lack of predictability. However, combining complementary renewable energy technologies that produce electricity at different times (i.e. the wind is blowing more when the sun is shining less, and vice versa) has been shown to smooth out renewable power production, integrate more renewable power into the grid, and drive down the size and costs of energy storage. Even so, policies to support combining these technologies are not present in Canada. 

Renewable power can be made more reliable by adding other innovations, such as allowing electricity sharing between consumers through “peer to peer trading” and encouraging consumers to change their demand when renewable power production is low or high (known as demand response and load balancing). Clustering renewable energies with these innovations not only improves the reliability of renewable power; it reduces the costs of implementation and provides resilience for local economic development. In addition, using electric cars as back-up power sources in people’s homes can help privatize and distribute some of the costs of the infrastructure support for clusters.

Canada will need to introduce policies that support the deployment of clusters of complementary low- and no-carbon technologies to the market.

While clustering technology effectively improves reliability and drives down both energy use and costs of implementation, in my 13 years of research I have yet to come across any jurisdictions in developed economies that have implemented policies that support the diffusion of complementary renewable energy sources. In Japan, the solar lobby prevented the widespread adoption of wind power that could have complemented solar power. Vietnam has one of the most successful solar energy programs in the world, but its almost exclusive focus on this type of renewable energy has disrupted the reliability of its electricity system.

The European Union is currently rolling out legislation to support the implementation of renewable energy with other innovations like energy storage, peer-to-peer trading and virtual power plants (VPPs are networks of decentralized, medium-scale power-generating units such as wind farms and solar parks). However, this legislation still does not explicitly support the diffusion of complementary renewable energy sources. 

The importance of the widespread adoption of renewable energy in NDCs is underscored again and again at COP26, by academics, environmental advocates, politicians and business leaders alike. The We Mean Business Coalition, which is hosting a pavilion at COP26, is calling for the ambitious goals of ending coal and scaling up renewables now. On November 2, the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet – which includes the Rockefeller Foundation, IKEA and the World Bank Group – launched a goal of reaching one billion people with renewable power. 

Canada is rightly investing $964 million in smart renewable energy projects, some of which will support VPPs, and this will need to be ramped up to successfully electrify  most of our transportation and energy systems. During September’s federal election campaign, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party promised a Dutch-inspired model of deep energy retrofits for buildings. Now is the time to re-examine how our economic and regulatory policies across federal and provincial jurisdictions can move toward supporting complementary low- and no-carbon technologies that can provide reliable, affordable energy to communities while achieving our NDC under the Paris Agreement with confidence. Lobbying and advocacy works, and those pushing for change can call for the rollout of clusters of innovations that support our collective future. 

Christina Hoicka is an associate professor of geography and civil engineering at the University of Victoria. She is attending COP26 as an observer. 

The post Dispatches from COP26: If Canada wants to meet its emissions targets, it needs to support clusters of innovations appeared first on Corporate Knights.

It seems Canada is responding to that call. Steven Guilbeault, the newly minted minister of environment and climate change, is in Glasgow and knows a thing or two about climate leadership. This is not Minister Guilbeault’s first rodeo; he has been to 19 UN climate summits. 

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, and our government has pledged to decarbonize the economy by 2050. It also recently committed to achieving a 100% net-zero-emissions electricity sector by 2035. And waterpower will be central to delivering the goods on this agenda. 

We have a strong base to build on, but getting to that zero-carbon grid will require a great deal of collaboration and negotiation between different industries, utilities and governments. That’s why, two weeks ago, my organization, WaterPower Canada, joined up with five other associations to form Electricity Alliance Canada. The coalition represents the leading suppliers of electricity to consumers and markets in Canada. All of us will work together to promote the power of electrification.

Hydro is already the backbone of Canada’s enviably clean electricity grid. Water flowing through turbines produces close to 90% of Canada’s renewable electricity, and 60% of the country’s electric needs are powered by water. 

Nonetheless, despite having a grid that is 80% non-emitting, Canada’s decarbonization strategy hinges on electrification – the repowering of almost everything in our society that today burns fossil fuels to instead run on zero-emissions electricity. This will mean cars, buildings, factories and more. Efficiency will play an important role in meeting this demand surge, of course. With only 20% of our energy end-use currently electrified, transitioning everything at scale will require us to generate a great deal more new zero-emissions electricity. According to the federal government, Canada may need to double or even triple its capacity.

Some Canadian provinces, such as Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nova Scotia, generate electricity from fossil fuels, and those jurisdictions will soon want to clean up their grids and transition fossil fuels to, ideally, renewables such as wind and water. In those places and elsewhere, Canada’s waterpower fleet stands ready to not only deliver new capacity, but also help smooth and balance the load for variable renewables such as wind and solar.

Domestic electrification will drive demand for new zero-carbon electricity, but so will global markets. As policy-makers increasingly forge ahead with carbon pricing, markets will look to produce goods and services with very low-carbon electricity. Canada’s extensive waterpower fleet will make Canada an attractive destination for investment as these electrons remain the most affordable, flexible and dispatchable form of electricity. We are already seeing this with the growing number of data centres setting up operations in provinces like Quebec. Thanks in large part to this nation’s abundant, cost-competitive, low-emissions waterpower, a 2020 IT industry index, compiled by the New Statesman Media Group, recently ranked Canada the top destination for such facilities.

There is plenty of momentum to build on. We can see it in developments ranging from rapidly growing electric vehicle adoption, to cutting-edge efforts to electrify high-intensity industrial processes such as steel manufacturing and investments in green hydrogen. Whatever new commitments our government brings back from Glasgow, Canada’s waterpower industry is prepared to make them happen.

Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin is the president & CEO of WaterPower Canada.

The post How flowing water will help Canada raise the bar on electrification appeared first on Corporate Knights.

UN is calling for a rapid coal phase-out in developed countries and no new coal plants in developing economies like China and India.

Speed up the switch to EVs

U.K. and others will ban the sale of new fossil-fuelled cars by 2030. They want more countries to follow their lead.

Ramp up renewables

Solar and wind can meet world energy demand 100 times over.

Let nature thrive

Legally binding targets to restore forests, grasslands and wetlands – and making farming more sustainable – would remove more carbon from the air.

Adapt to the coming storms

Build defences, warning systems and resilient infrastructure to protect homes, livelihoods and lives from floods and extreme weather.

Fund developing countries

Developed nations need to deliver on their promise to raise at least $100 billion in climate finance per year to help developing countries go green

The post Knight bites: Global COP26 climate summit to-do list appeared first on Corporate Knights.

With competing interests, values and needs at play, getting everyone on the same page will be an impossible task. Particularly when transitioning to a low-carbon economy raises a number of complex ethical quandaries, such as how best to support oil and gas industry workers who might look at the energy transition with reluctance. These issues will make the necessary transition all the more difficult to navigate together, as both a country and planet that has yet to develop a shared vision. Striving for consensus will likely result in paralysis. 

With this in mind, letting go of the association between success and consensus is especially important right now, as governments from across the world are set to meet in Glasgow at this year’s UN climate summit, or COP26, starting on October 31. Leaders face no easy task, and big talk must be met with big action if we’re going to prevent climate chaos. 

Which is why leaders attending the conference will need to avoid focusing on persuasion tactics.

If leaders spend their time trying to convince each other of “the right solution,” they’ll return home with nothing but empty promises and unclear deliverables. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be collaborative, but we’ll never get anywhere if we epitomize consensus as the pinnacle of success. 

Moving away from consensus doesn’t imply dismissing people’s perspectives; in fact, it implies quite the opposite. When we become less attached to our own ideas, and more open to the ideas of others, we’re more likely to embrace a diversity of perspectives and applicable solutions.

This was one of the main conclusions reached in a September workshop attended by fellows of the Alberta-based Energy Futures Lab, set up to respond to the federal government’s recent People-Centred Just Transition Discussion Paper. Instead of trying to find the solution to enabling a just transition, a number of insights emerged that offered, at the very least, various small stepping stones in a shared direction. Some attendees highlighted how workers could benefit from programs that will teach them new skills. And others considered how workers nearing the end of their careers might benefit from early retirement incentives. 

Attendees established early on in the workshop that striving for consensus would be an ineffective use of their time. So they instead focused on bringing forward ideas that captured the unique needs, interests and values of their specific communities. An Indigenous attendee, for example, talked about how existing skill sets could be leveraged within Indigenous communities, pointing out that an Indigenous worker is three times more likely than a non-Indigenous worker to be employed in extractive industries. It became clear just how many different approaches and tactics could be used to enable the energy transition.

Of course consensus is required when it comes to some big-ticket items, such as aligning behind a vision for net-zero by 2050 or acknowledging the scientific principles that underpin this objective. But the “solutions space” in which we must work to enable this transition is much more nuanced. It’s in this space that striving for consensus becomes a hindering force. 

So instead of trying to persuade one another that one solution is the best, COP26 attendees can approach their time in Glasgow a little differently. Rather than trying to force consensus, we can allow ourselves to delve deeper, thinking through the “creative tension” that arises as various perspectives collide. The idea of exploring this tension in a constructive way is at the core of the Energy Futures Lab’s approach and entails identifying common ground, rather than trying to persuade others to see things our way. In doing so, we can stop searching for a silver-bullet solution while also honouring a diversity of perspectives in a way that applies a variety of solutions to different contexts and in service of different people. 

In this sense, moving away from consensus isn’t about taking the ideas of a few and charging ahead. It’s not a matter of leaving people behind or justifying our inability to serve them by way of deeming consensus an impossibility. It’s a matter of acknowledging that no, we aren’t all going to agree on the best solutions or approaches, which is why we need to deploy a lot of them. Since we’ll never reach consensus around the path forward, we can instead agree to disagree while embracing a multitude of solutions and transition pathways. For instance, we can’t assume that rural communities will transition to electric vehicles in the same way or at the same rate that dense urban centres will. Different geographic regions will require different fixes so as not to be left behind when it comes to transforming our transportation systems. 

We know that attempting to convince people that our way is the best way will always be met with varying degrees of resistance, but allowing diverse perspectives to co-exist can result in the creation of a solid foundation that supports collaborative action. 

Perhaps our greatest chance of reaching net-zero by mid-century while also supporting an inclusive and equitable transition involves accepting that consensus is an unlikely reality. This isn’t to suggest that in the absence of consensus, we adopt the ideas of a select few. Instead, it’s an invitation to approach this transition from more directions, with more ideas on the table and with a willingness to experiment, create and explore outside of our personal comfort zones. 

Emma Gammans leads communications for the Energy Futures Lab, an initiative of The Natural Step Canada. She is an Alberta-based writer and communications professional who writes on topics including energy transition and community well-being.

The post Advice to world leaders heading to UN climate summit: forget consensus appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Article 6 of the 2015 accord would set up a carbon market in which countries that have met their emissions-cutting goals could sell credits to nations that failed on their commitments. But since the Paris Agreement was struck, governments have quibbled about the rules that would govern the creation and purchasing of such credits.

The Canadian government and many business groups argue that a well-functioning carbon market would lower the cost for corporations and countries to hit ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Critics warn such a system would discourage direct emission reductions in favour of more questionable measures and could place an undue burden on citizens of poorer countries as richer nations purchase the right to pollute.

In talks leading up to the Glasgow conference, national negotiators have narrowed their differences over proposed rules, but further concession will be required, Wilkinson told Corporate Knights in a telephone interview. Brazil – one of the leading holdouts – signalled last week that it is willing to compromise to reach an agreement.

“I think we all understand where the issues lie; I think everyone sees there may be landing zones for some of the big issues,” he said.

“It will require everybody to be a little bit flexible in terms of their positions, including Canada. But I’m cautiously optimistic we’ll get there this time with something that Canada can accept.”

However, no Article 6 would be better than a watered-down version that lacks environmental integrity, transparency and equity for people in less-developed nations. Canada will have to be prepared to walk away without an agreement if a proposed compromise undermines Paris Agreement goals.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will unveil his post-election cabinet tomorrow, and Wilkinson will find out whether he will be reappointed as Minister of Environment and Climate Change or be shuffled to a different post.

The first order of business for either a reinstalled Wilkinson or his replacement will be to represent Canada at COP26 – though Trudeau is expected to attend in the closing days. Sending a new minister to Glasgow would reduce Canada’s effectiveness in defending the national interest. 

The government also faces a massive challenge in implementing its climate strategy after committing to more ambitious targets and policies over the past year and in the recent election campaign. Wilkinson’s experience and savvy would be major assets in that effort.

Unfinished business

A major agenda item for the summit is to complete the work on Article 6. Canada played a key role in its inclusion in the Paris accord in 2015 when then-neophyte Environment Minister Catherine McKenna led negotiations that nailed down language despite serious opposition from a number of countries led by Brazil.

In the phone interview, Wilkinson said Canada’s own commitment to reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030 does not depend on the purchase of foreign credits or a functional Article 6.

“Our focus is to ensure we have a plan where we can make the domestic reductions to meet our new target,” he said. “The government sees a path to achieving that target that both reduces emissions and transforms Canada’s domestic economy to prosper in a net-zero-carbon world.”

However, the rules of Article 6 will apply not only to the current Liberal plans but to any future government that may be inclined to purchase foreign credits as an easier route to hitting emission-reduction targets when confronted with political and economic challenges at home. Rigorous standards will be needed to govern its use by other nations, as well as future Canadian governments.

Trading credits

The goal of an international carbon market is to finance the lowest-cost emissions reductions on the path to a net-zero future. 

In a report released last week, the International Emissions Trading Association said an effective Article 6 framework would enable countries to make more ambitious emission-reduction commitments at no additional cost. As such, it would accelerate the transition to a net-zero world, the report concluded.

Quebec is already participating in a cap-and-trade market with California. Completion of Article 6 would allow Canada to claim in its future reports to the United Nations the credits purchased by Quebec entities under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). In an August auction, the WCI price per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent was $29.41, while the federal carbon price is $40 per tonne this year. 

Wilkinson said Canada would achieve its targets with or without Quebec’s WCI credits.

Many corporations – including oil and gas companies – have also announced net-zero targets for 2050 that will rely to varying degrees on the purchase of offsets.

That trend worries some environmentalists who argue the focus should be on direct emission reductions and an economy-wide transition off fossil fuels. 

“With a very small global carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C, implementing the Paris Agreement should not rely on mechanisms that let polluters off the hook via offsetting,” Climate Action Network Canada (CAN-C) said in a brief released last week. The network represents more than 100 environmental and civil society organizations across the country. 

It argued that Canada must insist on strong environmental integrity provisions as well as human rights protections to ensure that farmers and other people in the Global South are not pushed off their land as a result of Article 6 transactions involving conservation and reforestation.

The CAN-C briefing noted concern that the oil industry is looking to Article 6 to claim emission credits for the sale of liquified natural gas to Asian markets that currently use a lot of coal for their electricity. 

Wilkinson said such a transaction could be possible but only if the full emissions of natural gas extraction, shipping and use are factored in; if there is a clear and direct link between the sale of gas in replacing coal; and if the foreign utility and national government did not want to use the emission-reduction credits for its targets and UN reporting.

Those are big conditions that would severely limit – if not eliminate – the potential for Canadian producers to claim Article 6 credits.

Many of the issues arising in the discussions around Article 6 echo broader concerns about the market economy that offers efficiency but often at a cost in terms of environmental protection, equity and human rights. 

In the consensus-based decision-making at Glasgow, the Canadian government can insist on a market-based approach that features rigorous safeguards to protect the global public interest. Anything less would be a setback in the battle against climate change.

The post Negotiators to tussle at COP26 in Glasgow over creating an international carbon market appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Limited access to COVID-19 vaccines in certain regions, travel restrictions and quarantine in the United Kingdom for people from “red list” countries in Central and South America, Africa and Asia, and rising costs of travel and lodging are hindering Indigenous participation, Indian Country Today has found.

Even those who manage to get to Glasgow, Scotland, for what is shaping up to be one of the world’s most important meetings on addressing climate change may have little access to influence the discussion, despite the UN’s recognition that Indigenous knowledge is key to long-term success.

“Indigenous peoples need to create their own Indigenous Climate Change Convention,” said Graeme Reed, co-chair of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change. Reed is of Anishinaabe and European descent.

The gathering is set from November 1-12 in Glasgow, and leaders in the United Kingdom have been adamant that the meeting take place in person despite the resurgence of the pandemic.

As COVID-19 infections rise, however, the United Nations and United Kingdom leaders are facing increasing public pressure from Indigenous people, non-governmental organizations and leaders in developing nations to postpone the November conference until people can gather together safely.

A coalition of 1,500 green organizations as well as a coalition of 48 Indigenous and civil society groups sent letters to leaders calling for the conference to be delayed. And more than 600 member organizations of the Women and Gender Constituency to the climate change summit joined the call to postpone the meeting, saying that the event pits climate change action against global health.

Currently, British citizens traveling home from red-list countries must undergo testing and quarantine in a hotel. Non-U.K. residents from red-list countries are denied entry altogether

The U.K. made a special exception initially to allow for vaccinated COP26 delegates from red-list countries to enter the country, but required them to quarantine for five days at a hotel. Recently, after calls escalated for cancelation of the summit, COP26 President Alok Sharma announced that both vaccinated and unvaccinated delegates, observers and media from red-list countries would be allowed to enter, with their quarantine time in hotels paid for by the U.K. government.

Vaccinated participants from red-list countries must quarantine for 5 days; unvaccinated must quarantine for 10 days.

COP26 organizers announced in June that they would be sending vaccines to delegates who might not otherwise have access to them, but Britain didn’t start shipping the vaccines until September 3, officials said.

In response to questions from Indian Country Today, a COP26 spokesperson said organizers are working to keep the gathering safe.

“We are working closely with public health officials, and all partners including the Scottish Government and UN, on every possible measure to ensure we hold COP26, in person, in a COVID-19 secure way,” according to the statement. “This includes vaccinations, a specific test, trace-and-isolate regime, social distancing, enhanced ventilation and face coverings. The U.K. has announced the offer of vaccination to COP26 …accredited delegates who would otherwise be unable to get them and we are on track to administer the first doses.”

It’s almost too late, however, for people to be fully vaccinated and obtain visas for travel in time to attend the conference, said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network. Goldtooth is of Diné and Dakota ancestry.

“I’m questioning the legitimacy of this conference, since the people who really need to be there might not be able to attend,” he said.

‘Barriers to participation’

Authors of the massive, sobering UN climate change report, the International Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report released on Aug. 9, make several references to Indigenous people and their knowledge of the Earth as essential resources in battling global warming.

And in the preamble of the landmark 2015 UN Paris COP21 agreement binding member countries together to battle climate change, parties acknowledge that action should be guided by knowledge of Indigenous peoples.

But that doesn’t mean officials listen. In the UN organizational scheme, individual member countries are considered sovereign states but Indigenous tribes or communities are not — they must depend on UN accredited organizations for credentials allowing them to attend the conference.

Each accredited organization receives a limited number of credentials for attendees. COP26 organizers had not yet issued credentials to accredited organizations by early September.

“Indigenous peoples’ lives are on the front lines of climate change and I am concerned that so few of us will be able to be at the table in Glasgow during negotiations,” said Andrea Carmen, co-chair of the Facilitative Working Group for the Local Communities and Indigenous People’s Platform. Carmen is a citizen of the Yaqui Nation and executive director of the International Treaty Council.

Indigenous peoples were not allowed inside negotiations among states at the COP conferences until 2015, when they gained recognition under the Paris Agreement with the creation of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform.

I’m questioning the legitimacy of this conference, since the people who really need to be there might not be able to attend.
-Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network

In 2018, platform members elected 14 members to the Facilitative Working Group, half of whom are representatives of Indigenous peoples organizations and half from regional groups. Under the rarified, complex hierarchy of the UN climate change conventions, the group has official recognition and can submit work plans to negotiations. Members of the working group can be present during negotiations but lack official negotiating power.

“We had to do our work by exerting pressure from outside the process,” Carmen said. “If we were lucky, we might have had a couple of Indigenous people who were credentialed by states who would come out and tell us what was really happening.”

Indigenous peoples attained the status only after decades of hard work and negotiations by leaders and advocates, Carmen said.

Reed said the group strengthens the positions Indigenous people bring to the table.

“The working group is an important tool for Indigenous peoples to have institutional credibility within the eyes of the UN Climate Change Convention,” Reed said.

But it’s not the same as negotiating on equal footing with other sovereign nations, critics contend.

“Even in the best of times access to and participation in the (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) spaces is far from equal, whether for negotiators or for civil society observers,” the 48 Indigenous and civil society organizations wrote in a letter to COP26 leaders that was shared with Indian Country Today.

“Global inequalities play out in terms of whose delegation is biggest, best resourced and most able to cover multiple negotiations at the same time,” the letter states. “Marginalized groups, Indigenous peoples and women face particular barriers to participation.”

Indigenous peoples lead the way

Although the world’s Indigenous population continues to experience unequal access to influential forums such as COP26, they have had an outsize role in calling attention to the impacts of climate change.

Globally, Indigenous people comprise only 5% of the population yet manage 80% of the world’s biodiversity such as forests, tundra and mountains. And although they exert the smallest carbon footprint, they are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, according to research published in the academic journal, Nature Sustainability.

“Indigenous peoples are action makers, innovators, through their traditional knowledge,” wrote Hindou Oumarou, a member of the Facilitative Working Group, in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals blog. Ibrahim is a member of the Mbororo pastoralist people in Chad and president of the Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad.

“For centuries, Indigenous peoples have protected the environment, which provides them food, medicine and so much more,” she said. “Now it’s time to protect and benefit from their unique traditional knowledge to bring concrete and natural solutions to fight climate change.”

The Indigenous Environmental Network released a report in August 2021 claiming that Indigenous resistance against fossil fuel expansion projects in Canada and the U.S. has stopped or delayed greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least one-quarter of the annual emissions in both countries.

Researched and written by Indigenous Environmental Network staff and Oil Change International, the “Indigenous Resistance Against Carbon” report examines 26 Indigenous frontline battles against a variety of fossil fuel projects, such as the Dakota Access Pipeline, Enbridge Line 3 and others.

“Indigenous land defenders have exercised their rights and responsibilities to not only stop fossil fuel projects in their tracks but establish precedents to build successful social justice movements,” the report stated.

Going beyond ‘lip service’

For now, Indigenous leaders and organizations are working to gain as much access as possible to the UN conference even as COP26 policies are changing daily.

COP26 organizers are now considering holding the conference as a hybrid virtual summit, according to Aberto Saldamondo, counsel on climate change for the Indigenous Environmental Network.

A virtual meeting would significantly sideline Indigenous people who may have limited access to reliable internet service, according to Carmen, Goldtooth and other Indigenous leaders.

Moreover, they believe the negotiations should take place in person, since Indigenous participants have limited access to conference sessions with officials and government leaders.

“A lot of the work at the UN is grabbing states (leaders) in the hallways and cafeterias and saying, ‘Hey, we need your support on this position or policy,’” Carmen said. “We need to be able to sit down physically with the states and tell them about our communities. That kind of work can’t be accomplished virtually.”

Indigenous leaders in the U.S. got a boost this year when the nation officially rejoined the UN Paris Agreement on Climate Change, with former Secretary of State John Kerry appointed as the first presidential envoy for climate change.

Carmen said Kerry met informally via a Zoom call with her and a handful of tribal leaders in August seeking input from Indigenous people regarding the U.S. position on climate change.

“I reminded him respectfully that in creating the Facilitative Working Group, COP leaders stated that countries are strongly urged to consult with Indigenous peoples; part of that commitment includes incorporating suggestions and recommendations by Indigenous peoples into U.S. policy,” Carmen said.

“I suggested that the U.S. could take the lead in officially including Indigenous peoples in policy creation,” she said. “He did agree to meet with us informally in Glasgow at the COP26 conference.”

Kerry’s office declined to provide a comment to Indian Country Today.

Andrew Miller, advocacy director for Amazon Watch, a nonprofit organization advancing the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon basin, is among those who are skeptical about the impact of the conference.

“It will be interesting to see if there’s any concrete outcome from the COP26 beyond lip service to Indigenous peoples and rights,” Miller said. “We always debate whether or not to go to the annual COP meetings. From a cost-benefit perspective, it may not be worth it for Indigenous leaders to spend limited funds and to take two weeks away from essential community organizing against loggers, gold-miners, etc.“

Still, Miller said he understands that Indigenous people are reluctant to back away after their hard-won, albeit limited, access. But he wonders if COP26 will contribute to policy changes among massive international non-governmental organizations or other powerful international entities such as the World Bank, corporations and governments.

“This is what we need to watch for,” he said.

Mary Annette Pember, a citizen of the Red Cliff Ojibwe tribe, is a national correspondent for Indian Country Today.

This story originally appeared in Indian Country Today and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

The post Indigenous leaders face barriers to UN climate conference appeared first on Corporate Knights.