In a comment on What’s Two Million Years Or So? John Cullen observed that “climate catastrophism is simply a tool for wealth distribution.” That is a conclusion at which I had already arrived by the time I finished Call That A Party?, if not some considerable time before. In the run-up to COP27 the emphasis had been on “loss and damage” and the need for a(nother) fund to be set up, with money to be paid in by developed countries, and doled out to developing countries, it being claimed that developing countries have done least to cause climate change, while suffering the most from its effects. Nobody seemed unduly surprised (or indeed unduly bothered) when the outcome of COP27 was to fail to produce any form of agreement to do anything substantial about the ongoing emission of greenhouse gases. Instead, many seemed pleased to note a commitment to set up a loss and damage fund as the main achievement (if such it can be called), with a few more attentive observers noting that nobody was actually obliged to pay anything into the fund.

Of course, a laser focus remains on climate change in many quarters, and discussion about it is now the constant backdrop to our lives. This is essential if it is to be the hook on which attempts to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world are hung. So constant is the focus on the BBC that I now play a game when setting off in the car with the radio tuned to BBC Radio 4, 5 or the World Service – I have to guess how long it will take before climate change is mentioned. Last week set the record, when a programme on the World Service about a cooking challenge announced that the winner would be the competitor who produced the most climate-friendly meal. I hadn’t even reached the end of the street.

However, I digress. Back to “climate justice”. It seems that our local library is keen to display leaflets that push all and any aspects of the agenda relating to climate change, net zero and climate justice. I wrote The Great British Turn Off in part as a response to one such leaflet. It shouldn’t surprise me that I find so much climate-related documentation in the foyer of the library, given that the local Council has resolved “to become a ‘carbon neutral’ county and to mitigate the likely impact of existing climate change” and Councils up and down the country are prioritising climate change and net zero whatever the cost. Perhaps librarians should be careful what they prioritise, however, given that while net zero and climate change projects never seem to be at risk, libraries are often in the front-line for cuts when there are budget shortfalls.

In any event, a few days ago I picked up another leaflet from the library; this one is called “The Case For Climate Justice”. I have now had a chance to read it (although use of the word “read” might be said to be overdoing it a bit, since it takes the form of something akin to a comic, with lots of pictures and speech bubbles). I noticed that it was published by an organisation called Global Justice, and a visit to their website suggests that they are a nakedly political anti-capitalist campaigning organisation. That in itself is not a problem – they are entitled to their views, and to disseminate them. But should they be allowed to do so by placing leaflets in the foyer of my local library? Well, according to the Council’s Library Display Policy:

The following will not be accepted for display or exhibition in any form:

…Campaigning materials – we can accept materials that inform, but not those that urge a particular course of action.

Political materials advocating the interests and causes of a particular party, affiliated organisation, or movement…

According to the Global Justice website:

We are a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.

It openly describes many of its activities as “campaigns”, including in the area of pharma, trade, climate, aid and debt justice, migration, and food. The website advert for its “We Rise Manchester” event (21st January next year, if you’re interested), for instance, tells us:

As the international cost of living crisis worsens and climate change intensifies, corporations are making record-breaking profits. Whether it’s fossil fuel billionaires, big banks or tech giants, their interests are a threat to the 99%. But around the world people are taking to the streets, challenging corporations and governments and successfully creating alternatives!

Join us for We Rise to learn more about this fight for global justice. Together we’ll unpack how colonialism, capitalism, hostile border regimes, and corporate power have created vast inequality, and how we organise to end it…

That, then, is Global Justice, and it seems fairly clear to me that its leaflet shouldn’t be distributed via my local library, since it seems equally clear that its display there is a breach of the Library Display Policy. Maybe the staff are ignorant as to the leaflet’s contents. Or maybe rules are applied selectively. Who knows? But there doesn’t seem to be much point in having a policy if it is simply going to be ignored.

Having got that off my chest, what is my problem with the contents of the leaflet, specifically? Well, first of all, there’s the usual unsubstantiated claims, printed as though they are facts:

Climate Breakdown is wreaking havoc across the world.

Record heatwaves, and more frequent and devastating hurricanes, floods and droughts are already destroying the lives of millions of people.

Industrialisation poured greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate never seen before, causing the climate crisis.

The countries who were impoverished first by colonialism, and then by decades of having the global economy rigged against them are now more vulnerable to climate breakdown because of their economic situation.

So far, so predictable (and contentious), perhaps. But next comes the part that really displays that the agenda is about making UK citizens feel guilty enough to demand that large sums of money are sent by the UK government to countries who are deemed to be deserving of it on grounds of “climate justice”. And this is where the deep disingenuousness begins:

The UK is among those countries with very high historical emissions. We have made a much bigger contribution to the crisis than countries with large populations such as China and India.

Leaving aside for the moment the highly contentious nature of the claim that there is a crisis, to claim that the UK has made a bigger contribution to it (by virtue of “very high historical emissions”) than countries such as as China and India is simply wrong, as I hope I demonstrated clearly in Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!

The claim, such as it is, is then backed up by a map, showing countries such as the UK and the USA and much (but by no means all) of Europe in deep red, representing per person tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in excess of 1,000, while countries such as India and China are shown in pale green (per capita emissions between 10 and 300). The period selected for this claim is 1850-2014. Why stop at 2014? The emissions between 2014 and 2021 are well known and not difficult to establish. This is legerdemain of a high order. Cherry pick your dates. Use the data obtained in respect of those carefully chosen dates to colour your map, and then pretend that the map backs up the statement (published on the same page, overlaying the map) that “We have made a much bigger contribution to the crisis than countries with large populations such as China and India.” Of course, the truth is that both China and India lie ahead of the UK in the cumulative emissions table, and although India’s per capita emissions lag behind those of the UK to this day (though they are starting to catch up) China’s per capita emissions are 50% higher than those in the UK. In short, the claims made in the leaflet are simply wrong, and claims of climate justice are being milked as part of an anti-capitalist, anti-western views. Be anti-capitalist and anti-western, by all means, but please don’t bring false claims about climate justice into it to support your agenda. You might also care to note that communism as practised in the USSR and eastern Europe prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and in China to date, wasn’t exactly environmentally-friendly.

Other information gleaned from the Global Justice website includes the fact that the Global Justice Now Trust is a UK registered charity.

Its objectives are said to be:

To promote for the public benefit studies in political, economic and social sciences and other educational subjects

To disseminate such knowledge, with particular reference but not limited to questions of economic and social development in Britain and developing countries elsewhere

To relieve poverty in Britain or elsewhere

To raise financial support for the activities of the Trust

To pursue such other related charitable purposes as the Trust may determine.

Also:

Why are Global Justice Now and the Global Justice Now Trust separate organisations?

Global Justice Now Trust enables those who prefer to contribute to a charity to do so without needing to be associated directly with GJN’s particular campaigns. English law confers some benefits on GJNT that are not available to GJN even though legal campaigning restrictions on charities have been relaxed since AWDF [Action For World Development Fund, the name with which it was originally established in 1974] was established. Trustees, individually and collectively, are able to give specific support to GJN efforts when appropriate and, because membership of the GJNT Board changes more slowly than that of the GJN Council or staff, occasionally provide a useful historic perspective.

Donations to the Global Justice Now Trust can be gift-aided, meaning that the Global Justice Now Trust can claim back tax you have already paid on your donation, typically 25p for every £1.

In other words, Global Justice Trust Now makes the most of its charitable status, maximising its revenues by using the tax privileges granted to it by its charitable status. Then:

The Trust pursues its objectives primarily by funding Global Justice Now to carry out specifically charitable work. Most of the Trust’s direct charitable expenditure is represented by grants to Global Justice Now to fund work on information, research and publications.

Having maximised its revenue by virtue of its charitable status, it then gives a lot of its money to the nakedly political anti-capitalist organisation with which it is associated. It claims that this is with a view to carrying out “specifically charitable work”, but it’s difficult (to my mind, certainly) to see that leaflets such as “The Case For Climate Justice” can be said to be created for charitable, rather than political, purposes. And Global Justice Trust Now does say that most of its “direct charitable expenditure is represented by grants to Global Justice Now to fund work on information, research and publications”. The same can be said with bells on for many of their leaflets, such as How to organise a placard making session:

Placards are a great way to get your group’s message across at a demonstration, protest or a photo op. But they can also be more than a straightforward slogan. Creative, funny or inspiring placards can play a role in creating a dynamic and engaging protest which people want to be part of, and the media want to cover.

A host of diverse and individual placards can help make a demo vibrant and pluralistic, but sometimes it’s important to balance this with a coherent message overall, which is something a good placard-making session can help with.

It can be a great way to bring people together before a protest, as a more relaxed opportunity for new members to join and for everyone to think collectively about your key messages. Engaging people before the protest can also help ensure they turn up for the protest itself!

Perhaps I’m just old-fashioned, but that sounds political, not charitable, to me. None of this is in any way illegal, so far as I am aware. The people behind these organisations are, I am sure, well-intentioned, even if I profoundly disagree with much that they say. I wouldn’t dream of trying to restrict their right to campaign for the end of capitalism. I am, however, fairly convinced that they shouldn’t be able to use tax perks in order to do so, and that it’s time the way charities are allowed to operate was subject to root-and-branch reform. Big Green Charity needs to be brought under control and to have its wings clipped.

24 Comments

  2. “The reparations trap
    Elite guilt about the past will do nothing to help the world’s poorest.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/16/the-reparations-trap/

    The Spiked article touches on some of the same territory as my article, though it is more wide-ranging. I thought it worth mentioning here, as I believe it’s worth a read. Also, I find it difficult to argue with its concluding sentiments:

    So rather than self-flagellating reparations or expanding what Marx derided as the ‘proletarian alms-bag’, a far better approach would be to address the causes of poverty and lack of upward mobility. Corporate mea culpas about the impacts of climate change and racism won’t make things better for the poor and struggling around the world. A better solution lies in increasing people’s productive capacity – through rigorous education, access to capital and support for families. All of this helps people to progress on their own. Whether in developing countries or the slums of the West, hope lies not in recompense for things that occurred long ago, but in policies for the future. Elite guilt about the past will do nothing to improve the future.

    Like

  3. What’s behind the green door?

    That creeping behemoth The U.N. From its original peacekeeping role to expanded agencies and Agenda 21. initiated by the UN Bruntland Blueprint for Suss-tainable Development and allied ICLEI program , International Council for Local Environment Initiatives, involving local councils in 2500 plus towns and cites in over 250 countries,. ICLEI is aiming for Net Zero emission targets and climate justice.

    55th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL

    Like

  5. “‘Face it head on’: Connecticut makes climate change studies compulsory”

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/dec/17/climate-change-studies-connecticut

    Enshrining the curriculum in law insulates the subject from budget cuts and culture wars related to the climate crisis

    Sat 17 Dec 2022 08.00 GMT
    Starting next July, Connecticut will become one of the first states in America to mandate climate change studies across its public schools as part of its science curriculum.

    The new law passed earlier this year comes as part of the state’s attempts to address concerns over the short duration – and in some cases, absence – of climate change studies in classrooms. The requirement follows in the footsteps of New Jersey, which in 2020 became the first state to mandate K-12 climate change education across its school districts…

    …Madden also stresses the importance of equity-focused conversations when discussing the climate crisis in classrooms.

    “We have to acknowledge that climate change does not affect all people equally … There are kids in lower-income communities, communities of color and immigrant communities that experience flooding and power outages and things like that … in a much more magnified way than others,” she said.

    “It’s critical that when we’re talking to kids at that upper elementary, middle school, high school level, we’re ensuring that we are coming from an equity-based perspective.”…

    Social justice is, in my view, a good thing. However, I am uncomfortable in using climate change as the hook, when any such connection is far from proved, and I also worry about brainwashing our children. The article goes out of its way to stress the inter-disciplinary and objective nature of this part of the curriculum, but my money is on no questioning of the agenda by schoolchildren being allowed.

    Like

  7. Perhaps Cliscep should make its own tri-fold leaflet and get the library to host that – placing it directly adjacent to the Global Justice effort? Somehow I doubt that would be permitted.

    Regarding Connecticut’s mandate, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about the idea. But the truth is important and I get the sense that objective truth is not what is being talked about here. Rather, I suspect there will be a combination of catastrophism and West-blaming, salted with a generous dose of unicorn energy fantasies.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Beth – thanks for the comment & link, nice reminder of UN origins.

    apt timing as well after – https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/un-human-rights-commissioner-has-serious-concerns-about-elon-musk-suspending-journalists-on-twitter/ar-AA15ozsb

    “one of the highest-ranking officials in the United Nations said that the intergovernmental organization has “serious concerns” about the future of Twitter.”

    Hope Musk tells him to get a real job.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Mark, commentator Joe Public (above) has made the sort of observation that I have previously made and would still make, namely that the UN’s climate catastrophe narrative is essentially a tool for redistributing wealth between countries. However, I think we can go further and say that the same narrative is being used within many Western countries to redistribute wealth away from ordinary people and towards established elites (i.e. the narrative is being used to level DOWN rather than UP).

    We can see LEVELLING DOWN in, for example, the UK where we have had senior politicians blowing up “old” coal-fired power stations; old blast furnaces go the same way. In contrast, senior bankers and their politician allies promote the ESG agenda which will make green, tick-box jobs for the finance accountancy/sector; these latter jobs will NOT go to the people or regions that have lost their manual labour jobs, a rare exception being the new Cumbrian coalmine if it actually comes to pass.

    In short, while our politicians repeat the ‘levelling up’ mantra, they usually act to ‘level down’. Is this the power of the financial sector’s lobbying in action? If so, how is it to be countered in such a way that while finance flourishes, it does so in such a manner that the rest of the economy can prosper too?

    Regards,
    John.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Mark,
    If we are to have Climate Justice then perhaps we should start in our own country. That will be a challenge for our politicians who, deep in the grip of group-think and virtue signalling, seem to be batting for anybody but the home side.

    Regards,
    John.

    Like

  12. John C,

    Not surprisingly perhaps, I agree with everything that you write. Politicians who are obsessed with net zero keep promising us highly-paid good quality “green” jobs, but they never seem to appear, certainly not at scale. Meanwhile, many of them oppose well-paid jobs for working-class people in a coal mine. The only “green” jobs that I can see involve things like lobbying, lawyers (and I speak as one myself) interpreting green red tape, consultants and all the rest of the parasites. These are jobs which suck money out of the real economy rather than create wealth.

    As for batting for anyone but the home side, you mirror my own oft-repeated question as to why UK politicians seem to hate the British people so much.

    Like

  13. Beth – just another heads up on UN matters.
    over on the Bit Rot thread comments, Jit gave a link to –
    https://judithcurry.com/2022/12/09/jc-navigates-the-new-media/

    in her post is this – “This interview went viral on youtube, with 500,000 views in 7 days. Intimations of trouble ahead were a “Context” statement on climate change from the UN attached to my interview, designed to tell people the “truth” about climate change (when in fact the statement describes the “truth” of UN climate politics).”

    Like

  14. “Rich countries with high greenhouse gas emissions could pay $170tn in climate reparations
    Proposed compensation would be paid to developing countries that must transition away from fossil fuels”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/05/climate-change-carbon-budget-emissions-payment-usa-uk-germany

    Rich industrialised countries responsible for excessive levels of greenhouse gas emissions could be liable to pay $170tn in climate reparations by 2050 to ensure targets to curtail climate breakdown are met, a new study calculates.

    The proposed compensation, which amounts to almost $6tn annually, would be paid to historically low-polluting developing countries that must transition away from fossil fuels despite not having yet used their “fair share” of the global carbon budget, according to the analysis published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

    The compensation system is based on the idea that the atmosphere is a commons, a natural resource for everyone which has not been used equitably.

    It is the first scheme where wealthy countries historically responsible for excessive or unjust greenhouse emissions including the UK, US, Germany, Japan and Russia, are held liable to compensate countries which have contributed the least to global heating – but must decarbonise their economies by 2050 if we are to keep global heating below 1.5C and avert the most catastrophic climate breakdown.

    In this ambitious scenario, the study found that 55 countries including most of sub-Saharan Africa and India would have to sacrifice more than 75% of their fair share of the carbon budget.

    On the other hand, the UK has used 2.5 times its fair allocation, and would be liable to pay $7.7tn for its excessive emissions by 2050. The US has used more than four times its fair share to become the richest country in the world, and would be responsible for $80tn in reparations under this scheme…

    …Five low-emitting countries with large populations – India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and China (currently the world’s largest emitter) – would be entitled to receive $102tn, for sacrificing their fair share of the carbon budget in the zero emissions scenario.

    “Climate change reflects clear patterns of atmospheric colonisation,” said Jason Hickel, co-author and professor at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. “Responsibility for excess emissions is largely held by the wealthy classes [within nations] who have very high consumption and who wield disproportionate power over production and national policy. They are the ones who must bear the costs of compensation.”…

    Simplistic, but predictable. Given that India and China are bigger cumulative emitters than the UK, and China is a significantly bigger per capita emitter than the UK, the “logic” defies me. We must hope it never gets off the ground. If it does, that (combined with net zero taking us over the cliff) will bankrupt us.

    The original report can be found here:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01130-8

    Like

  16. “Paris climate finance summit fails to deliver debt forgiveness plan
    Countries in debt distress thrown financial lifeline but critics say measures fall short of what is needed”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/paris-climate-finance-summit-fails-to-deliver-debt-forgiveness-plan

    Poorer countries struggling with a growing debt crisis were thrown a lifeline at a global finance summit in Paris but the plans still fell short of the debt forgiveness programme that some had hoped for.

    Progress was made on reforms that would help address the climate emergency, as nearly 40 world leaders and the heads of global institutions met in Paris for the summit, which ended on Friday.

    Emmanuel Macron, the French president, called for global taxes on shipping, aviation and potentially on wealth in order to fund climate action. “Help us find all the countries which today have no tax on financial transactions and which today have no tax on plane tickets. Help us to mobilise at the International Maritime Organization [meeting to discuss a shipping tax] in July so that there is international taxation,” he told French broadcast journalists.

    Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary, signalled the Biden administration would consider the shipping tax, though she stopped well short of endorsing it….

    Like

  17. “US refuses climate reparations for developing nations”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66197366

    The US says it will not “under any circumstances” pay reparations to developing countries hit by climate change-fuelled disasters.

    Climate envoy John Kerry made the remarks at a Congress hearing before flying to China to discuss the issue.

    Some countries want major economies – which produce the most greenhouse gases – to pay for past emissions.

    A fund has been established for poorer nations, but it remains unclear how much richer countries will pay.

    Mr Kerry, a former secretary of state, was asked during a hearing before a House of Representatives foreign affairs committee whether the US would pay countries that have been damaged by floods, storms and other climate-driven disasters.

    “No, under no circumstances,” he said in response to a question from Brian Mast, the committee chair….

    Like

  18. “Rich countries urged to honour $100-billion climate finance goal”

    https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/rich-countries-urged-honour-100-billion-climate-finance-goal

    United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, António Guterres, has urged developed countries to keep their promises to developing nations by meeting the climate finance commitment of US$100 billion.

    This is after rich nations made a pledge in 2009 to the less wealthy countries at a UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, to assist them in adapting to climate change and alleviate rises in temperature by 2020.

    Guterres also called on the wealthy nations to double adaptation finance, replenish the Green Climate Fund, and operationalise the loss and damage fund this year.

    “As a matter of justice, Africa must be considered a priority in all these efforts,” he stressed.

    He delivered the remarks at the BRICS-Africa Outreach and BRICS Plus Dialogue, which was held during the 15th BRICS Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg….

    …Guterres also noted that African states account for just 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but are an epicentre of climate chaos….

    Considerable irony in his choice of venue to make that call, given who now comprises the recently-expanded BRICS group: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia. Between them, that’s one heck of a “carbon footprint”. As even India Narrative notes:

    “Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran’s inclusion in BRICS can chalk out a new global energy order”

    https://www.indianarrative.com/economy-news/saudi-arabia-uae-irans-inclusion-in-brics-can-chalk-out-a-new-global-energy-order-150511.html

    …The inclusion of these countries, rich in crude oil and other energy products, will have a far reaching impact as it will boost energy security and cooperation among members…

    …Saudi Arabia is the second largest oil producer but is the top exporter. Russia is the third largest exporter in the world. Since last year, Russia has been supplying a bulk of crude to India and China after the West led sanctions came into effect.

    Russia, Brazil and China, which also rank among the top oil producers in the world, are already part of the bloc that represents the emerging economies….

    …With this expansion the bloc will now boast 44.35 per cent of global oil reserves…

    …Until last year, Saudi Arabia produced about 11 million barrels a day while Russia produced 10.9 million. The UAE produced approximately 3.7 million barrels a day and Iran 3.6 million. …

    And that’s before we mention coal…

    Like

  19. “Labour’s David Lammy visits Brazil to build ‘climate justice’ partnership
    Shadow foreign secretary says Starmer government would work with President Lula on radical climate action”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/28/labours-david-lammy-visits-brazil-to-build-climate-justice-partnership

    The shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, has taken his green diplomatic policy for a test spin in Brazil this month in the hope that “climate justice” can serve as an international rallying cry for a future Labour government.

    In an interview with the Guardian, Lammy said a Labour victory at the next general election would allow Keir Starmer to build a partnership for radical climate action with Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, before the UN’s Cop30 climate summit in Belém in 2025.

    “It could be a very exciting, progressive moment where they could jointly move forward in a deep and long-lasting way, not just for the sake of our two countries but for the sake of the planet,” Lammy said. “The global community has been missing the UK being serious about these issues for some time.”

    Lammy is attempting to put clear green space between Labour’s foreign policy and that of the Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak, who was criticised for initially intending to skip last year’s climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, cutting the UK’s aid budget to 0.5% of GDP when he was chancellor, and approving a raft of new oil and gas drilling licences in the North Sea.

    Lammy, by contrast, has spent much of the past year pushing a “green foreign policy” that is intended to echo the “ethical foreign policy” of the former Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook. …

    Labour’s ethical foreign policy lasted a long time….or not, depending on your point of view.

    I understand David Lammy believes we should accelerate net zero. I wonder, then, why he found it necessary to fly to Brazil rather than using Zoom or something similar?

    Like

  20. “African leaders at odds over climate plans as crucial Nairobi summit opens
    Oil-producing African nations argue they should be able to use fossil fuel resources for economic growth”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/04/africa-leaders-climate-crisis-plans-nairobi-summit-opens

    African leaders and campaigners are at odds over the way forward for the continent as a critical climate summit begins in Nairobi.

    Some countries, such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Egypt and South Africa, have been expanding their renewable energy access and leading transition efforts on the continent, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    Africa has abundant renewable energy potential, solar power is the cheapest source of energy in most African countries, and as the costs associated with renewables fall, green energy access is becoming more accessible, say energy experts.

    But African nations with large oil and natural gas reserves – such as Nigeria, an oil-producing country where reserves, regulators believe, will last a few more decades, and Senegal, which has made significant oil and gas discoveries in recent years – argue they should be able to use those resources for economic growth and increased energy access.

    Other countries such as Namibia are straddling a middle ground, attracting significant investment in renewable energy while exploring the potential of oilfields off its coast over the last few years.

    The continent is responsible for less than 4% of emissions and with 600 million people across the continent without access to electricity and an expected rise in demand, debate has grown over the last decade on what a “just energy transition” for the continent would entail….

    Like

  21. “Africa proposes global carbon taxes to fight climate change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66733557

    …Joab Bwire Okanda, a senior advisor at the Christian Aid charity, said the call for a global carbon tax was welcome but that “to make polluters really pay, false solutions like carbon credits that allow polluters a free ride without taking meaningful action need to be consigned to the dustbin”.

    Some activists say the credits, which allow polluters to offset emissions by funding green activities, are a pretext for big polluters to keep emitting carbon dioxide.

    Mr Ruto said international governments, development banks, private investors and philanthropists committed a combined $23bn (£18bn) to green projects over the three days, including hundreds of millions to a major carbon markets initiative.

    But African leaders acknowledged that those kinds of investments only scratch the surface of the continent’s financial needs and said more systemic changes were needed.

    Some analysts said the summit had not focused enough on how to help Africans adapt to extreme weather.

    Protesters also criticised the conference, demonstrating outside the event against Africa’s plan to sell carbon credits to foreign countries.

    Several foreign companies and countries have committed hundreds of millions in carbon credit purchases from the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI), including the United Arab Emirates, which pledged to buy $450m (£358m).

    Like

  22. “Richest oil states should pay climate tax, says Gordon Brown”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66906395

    The world’s richest oil states should pay a global windfall tax to help poorer nations combat climate change, ex-PM Gordon Brown has said.

    He said countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Norway benefited from a “lottery style bonanza” last year, as the price of oil soared.

    Mr Brown argues a $25bn (£20.4bn) levy would boost prospects of a deal on a climate fund for poorer countries.

    His intervention comes ahead of the COP28 summit in Dubai in November….

    …Mr Brown said his plan would prevent a stalemate and potential breakdown at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – one of the richest oil producers identified.

    I’ve always quite liked Gordon Brown, feeling that he was outmanoeuvred by Tony Blair, and had bad luck at the start of his Premiership. Despite the stories about bad behaviour in No 11 (and later in No 10) Downing Street, which may or may not be true, I always felt that his heart was in the right place. And so it probably is, but I do wonder if his head is. Does he seriously think that a call for countries like the UAE to pay loads of “climate tax” will prevent a stalemate and breakdown at a COP to be held…in the UAE? Has he learned nothing from China and India’s determined watering-down of the text at COP 26 in Glasgow?

    Like

  23. This is quite amusing really. Well worth a read, IMO:

    “‘End the licences’: Vanuatu oil rig registry sparks concern amid climate advocacy
    Pacific country questioned over profits drawn from industry linked to oil as it gains global prominence for climate work”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/end-the-licences-vanuatu-oil-rig-registry-sparks-concern-amid-climate-advocacy

    Thousands of kilometres away from the Pacific, an oil rig in the North Sea operates under the flag of Vanuatu. In the Black Sea, a drilling rig hired by Canada’s Trillion Energy as part of its natural gas campaign is also flagged by Vanuatu.

    Offshore supply vessels sailing the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa and the Oman Gulf have Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, displayed across their hulls.

    According to maritime law, all ships – including oil drilling rigs, pipe laying ships and associated offshore vessels – must be registered by a country. That country is responsible for inspections, safety and enforcing regulations on board.

    For decades, the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu has provided this service for dozens of major oil rigs and offshore support vessels. Data compiled by S&P Global Commodity Insights ranks Vanuatu sixth in the world in terms of number of oil rigs flagged. The practice is legal but as the country gains global prominence for its climate change advocacy – Vanuatu is spearheading a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and recently led a campaign to get international legal consensus on obligations to prevent harm caused by climate change – its shipping registry has been questioned….

    Like

  24. “COP28: What is the loss and damage fund?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-67372735

    A new fund has been set up to help less economically developed countries mitigate the effects of climate change.

    But there has been some debate about who should contribute most to this loss and damage fund.

    Azeezat Olaoluwa looks at exactly what the fund is for, and why China and India, despite the amount of greenhouse gas they emit, think they shouldn’t have to pay as much as other economic powerhouses.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.