Mahlung

Kamina Johnson Smith, minister of foreign affairs and foreign trade, will this Friday represent Jamaica during the official signing of the Paris climate-change agreement in New York, following last November’s conference in France.

Some 200 countries had gathered in Paris for the COP 21 climate conference and, in December, adopted the new agreement, which aims to limit carbon emissions.

Clifford Mahlung, project administrator at the Climate Change Division in the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation, told The Gleaner that the signing is a significant step towards strengthening the work that has started to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“We will be among the other heads of state who will be there. This is the first step towards becoming a party to the Paris agreement because this has to be followed up by ratification,” he said.

“The process towards ratification will require government approval, and so that process is on the way. We should be complete before the year ends.”

Mahlung said now that the agreement is open for signature by the parties to the convention, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been asked to convene a crucial ceremony, which will be attended by United States President Barack Obama, among others.

 

NEED FOR SENSITISATION

 

Making reference to a post-COP 21 discussion held last week at the Four Seasons Hotel in New Kingston, Mahlung said it was important that Jamaicans are sensitised to the importance of the agreement, especially as it relates to carbon emissions.

“With the significance of COP 21, we decided to have this discussion one week before the official signing. This new climate-change agreement builds on the convention and provides the basis which will accommodate further work, with respect to the climate-change process,” Mahlung said.

The agreement itself consists of many areas, including the new long-term goal in keeping future temperatures well below 2˚C and pursuing efforts to keep those temperatures as close to 1.5˚C as possible.

“Even though we contribute less than one per cent to the global emissions, it is important that we do our part to control our energy output, which will signal to the emitters that we are serious about climate change, which will mean also that they have no excuse but to reduce their emissions as well,” he said.

jodi-ann.gilpin@gleanerjm.com

 

The Gleaner

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 22.05.48

Small island states lost out to their larger, more industrialised seniors at COP21.

 

The results of the climate change conference in Paris (COP21) give no reason for small island states to cheer. The agreement reflects many promises and little action.

The one item of concrete action is merely an undertaking to evaluate carbon emissions every five years — and even that has no teeth.

What is not in the agreement is a firm, legally binding commitment to limit average global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Also, not in the agreement is a legally binding commitment to provide developing countries with the funds needed to adapt to, and mitigate against the effects of climate change.

There isn’t even a commitment to a fund, in the sum of US$100 billion a year, that was frequently touted before the conference began.

Once again, the industrialised nations of the world — the worst polluters — took advantage of the weakness of the smallest countries of the world, which are the least polluters and the biggest victims of climate change.

To their credit, though, through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), representatives of small states did put up a good showing in Paris. Armed with the latest statistics and bolstered by a structured expert report released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they argued for the containment of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, showing that, at 2 degrees, destruction would be widespread and irreversible. But, in the end, despite all the hoopla, applause and celebration, small states lost.

Representatives of AOSIS countries might have been flattered by a brief visit to them by US President Barack Obama, when he declared: “These nations are not the most populous nations, they don’t have big armies, they have a right to dignity and sense of place.” But, while President Obama was undoubtedly sincere in what he said, he also knew, even as he was saying it, that he could not deliver ratification by the US Congress of any agreement that limited carbon emissions or bound the US legally to warming no higher than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So, the world has a so-called agreement, still to be ratified by the 196 participating countries, that only expresses an objective to limit global warming to “well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels”. The goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, as described by Amber Rudd, the British minister for energy and climate change, is merely “aspirational”. In making her statement that the target of 1.5 degrees is aspirational, the minister was sending a clear signal to the British industrial world that driving down carbon emissions from fossil fuels is not an immediate objective and therefore will not affect their business.

In truth, the climate change action plans submitted by 188 countries would lead to a temperature rise as high as 2.7 degrees Celsius. And, if that is not bad enough, the signatories to the Paris agreement are under no legal obligation even to meet that objective; they are legally free to enlarge carbon emissions further. So, no cause for small island states to celebrate over that one, and profound reason for them to worry.

At three degrees, the size of islands will shrink, productive areas will be under water, people will have to move habitats inland and many will be forced to migrate, legally and illegally. We have to hope that all the scientists who predict this scenario are wrong.

On the money side, the developed countries declined to insert into the Paris agreement their often-made oral commitments to transfer funds to poorer countries in order to help them adapt. Yet, all the studies show that even the US$100 billion a year that was promised would not be enough to help developing countries build up a power system quickly or cheaply enough on renewable energy sources rather than coal or oil. Incidentally, even if the US$100 billion a year fund was achieved, access to it by small states in the Caribbean would be long and arduous, particularly if the criterion of “per capita” income continues to be applied as it is now by international financial institutions. The portion available to the Caribbean region would be a small fraction of the total sum.

Some may argue that there are two aspects of the Paris agreement that are beneficial to small states, therefore, attention should be paid to them. The participating countries recognised “the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including weather events and slow onset events”. But, liability is completely ignored because it was opposed by the polluting industrialised countries. Recognition of a problem is far removed from committing to action to cure it.

Then there is the single binding legal requirement in the agreement. Every country is now required to come back every five years with new targets for reducing their carbon emissions. But there is no sanction if they fail to meet their previous commitment, and no sanction if they simply carry on business as usual.

COP21 in Paris may have been a triumph for some nations, but no self-respecting small island State should claim any satisfaction.

That is why each small State, individually and within the many organisations in which they are members — including AOSIS, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States and others — must now redouble their efforts to work on the developed country governments, but also to move beyond them to the conscience of the people of the industrialised world.

This is about survival and development — two defining challenges of this century for small states. It is the work of everyone; governments, businesses and civil society, all are involved and all could be consumed.

Jamaica Observer

Sir Ronald Saunders

 

Small island states lost out to their larger, more industralised seniors at COP21.

 

The results of the climate change conference in Paris (COP21) give no reason for small island states to cheer. The agreement reflects many promises and little action.

The one item of concrete action is merely an undertaking to evaluate carbon emissions every five years — and even that has no teeth.

What is not in the agreement is a firm, legally binding commitment to limit average global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Also, not in the agreement is a legally binding commitment to provide developing countries with the funds needed to adapt to, and mitigate against the effects of climate change.

There isn’t even a commitment to a fund, in the sum of US$100 billion a year, that was frequently touted before the conference began.

Once again, the industrialised nations of the world — the worst polluters — took advantage of the weakness of the smallest countries of the world, which are the least polluters and the biggest victims of climate change.

To their credit, though, through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), representatives of small states did put up a good showing in Paris. Armed with the latest statistics and bolstered by a structured expert report released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they argued for the containment of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, showing that, at 2 degrees, destruction would be widespread and irreversible. But, in the end, despite all the hoopla, applause and celebration, small states lost.

Representatives of AOSIS countries might have been flattered by a brief visit to them by US President Barack Obama, when he declared: “These nations are not the most populous nations, they don’t have big armies, they have a right to dignity and sense of place.” But, while President Obama was undoubtedly sincere in what he said, he also knew, even as he was saying it, that he could not deliver ratification by the US Congress of any agreement that limited carbon emissions or bound the US legally to warming no higher than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So, the world has a so-called agreement, still to be ratified by the 196 participating countries, that only expresses an objective to limit global warming to “well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels”. The goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, as described by Amber Rudd, the British minister for energy and climate change, is merely “aspirational”. In making her statement that the target of 1.5 degrees is aspirational, the minister was sending a clear signal to the British industrial world that driving down carbon emissions from fossil fuels is not an immediate objective and therefore will not affect their business.

In truth, the climate change action plans submitted by 188 countries would lead to a temperature rise as high as 2.7 degrees Celsius. And, if that is not bad enough, the signatories to the Paris agreement are under no legal obligation even to meet that objective; they are legally free to enlarge carbon emissions further. So, no cause for small island states to celebrate over that one, and profound reason for them to worry.

At three degrees, the size of islands will shrink, productive areas will be under water, people will have to move habitats inland and many will be forced to migrate, legally and illegally. We have to hope that all the scientists who predict this scenario are wrong.

On the money side, the developed countries declined to insert into the Paris agreement their often-made oral commitments to transfer funds to poorer countries in order to help them adapt. Yet, all the studies show that even the US$100 billion a year that was promised would not be enough to help developing countries build up a power system quickly or cheaply enough on renewable energy sources rather than coal or oil. Incidentally, even if the US$100 billion a year fund was achieved, access to it by small states in the Caribbean would be long and arduous, particularly if the criterion of “per capita” income continues to be applied as it is now by international financial institutions. The portion available to the Caribbean region would be a small fraction of the total sum.

Some may argue that there are two aspects of the Paris agreement that are beneficial to small states, therefore, attention should be paid to them. The participating countries recognised “the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including weather events and slow onset events”. But, liability is completely ignored because it was opposed by the polluting industrialised countries. Recognition of a problem is far removed from committing to action to cure it.

Then there is the single binding legal requirement in the agreement. Every country is now required to come back every five years with new targets for reducing their carbon emissions. But there is no sanction if they fail to meet their previous commitment, and no sanction if they simply carry on business as usual.

COP21 in Paris may have been a triumph for some nations, but no self-respecting small island State should claim any satisfaction.

That is why each small State, individually and within the many organisations in which they are members — including AOSIS, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States and others — must now redouble their efforts to work on the developed country governments, but also to move beyond them to the conscience of the people of the industrialised world.

This is about survival and development — two defining challenges of this century for small states. It is the work of everyone; governments, businesses and civil society, all are involved and all could be consumed.

Sir Ronald Sanders is Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador to the US; an international affairs consultant; as well as senior fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto, and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London. The views expressed are his own. For responses and to view previous commentaries:

www.sirronaldsanders.com.

The Observer

The biggest federal policy development of the year for renewables plays out on Congress’ last day of work in 2015.

Screen Shot 2015-12-18 at 14.23.04

Lawmakers in the House and Senate passed a spending package today that includes multi-year extensions of solar and wind tax credits, plus one-year extensions for a range of other renewable energy technologies.

The pair of bills, which included tax extenders and $1.1 trillion in funding to keep the government running for the next year, passed hours before lawmakers adjourned for the holidays.

“May the force be with you,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, urging her fellow Senators to vote in favor of the package shortly after the House approved the bills.

The force was certainly with renewables.

Under the legislation, the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar will be extended for another three years. It will then ramp down incrementally through 2021, and remain at 10 percent permanently beginning in 2022.

The 2.3-cent Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind will also be extended through next year. Projects that begin construction in 2017 will see a 20 percent reduction in the incentive. The PTC will then drop 20 percent each year through 2020.

Also included were geothermal, landfill gas, marine energy and incremental hydro, which will each get a one-year PTC extension. Those technologies will also qualify for a 30 percent ITC, if developers choose. In addition, the bill expanded grants for energy and water efficiency.

Business groups and analysts say the extensions will support tens of billions of dollars in new investment and hundreds of thousands of new jobs throughout the U.S.

“There’s no way to overstate this — the extension of the solar ITC is the most important policy development for U.S. solar in almost a decade,” said MJ Shiao, GTM’s director of solar research.

According to GTM Research, the ITC extension will help spur nearly 100 cumulative gigawatts of solar installations by 2020, resulting in $130 billion in total investment. More than $40 billion of investment will be “directly attributable to the passage of the extension,” said Shiao.

The American Wind Energy Association expects similar growth. The group did not issue precise figures, but said the PTC extension would support tens of gigawatts of new wind projects through 2020.

The legislation also lifts a 40-year ban on exports of crude oil produced in the U.S. In exchange for lifting the ban, Democrats pushed for multi-year extensions of renewable energy tax credits and demanded that Republicans strip out any riders that would weaken environmental laws.

Both sides got what they wanted.

However, Pelosi publicly worried yesterday that she didn’t have enough votes to support the bill. Many Democrats expressed concern about the oil export ban tradeoff, saying it would increase subsidies to fossil fuels and boost carbon emissions.

Congressional leaders and the White House lobbied hard to convince the Democratic base that the bill would be a win for the environment.

“While lifting the oil ex­port ban re­mains atrocious policy, the wind and solar tax credits in the Om­ni­bus will eliminate around 10 times more car­bon pollution than the ex­ports of oil will add,” wrote Pelosi in a letter to lawmakers.

Katherine Hamilton, a partner with 38 North Solutions, called the bill “sausage-making at its most intense.”

“The product should be palatable for most parties in clean energy. Extensions for renewables and efficiency tax credits were key sweeteners. In addition, clean energy R&D funding, land and water conservation funds, and clean energy funds were included in the deal,” she said.

Other independent analysts found that the deal would be a net positive for the climate. Although emissions would increase slightly because of increased drilling activity, they would be easily offset by increasing renewable energy development and decreased coal consumption.

“Our bottom line: Extension of the tax credits will do far more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the next five years than lifting the export ban will do to increase them. While this post offers no judgment of the budget deal as a whole, the deal, if passed, looks like a win for climate,” wrote Council on Foreign Relations fellows Michael Levi and Varun Sivaram.

The tax credit extensions cap a big month for renewable energy policy.

In early December, world leaders agreed to a framework for lowering global greenhouse gas emissions — a deal that will leverage hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment for clean technologies.

And earlier this week, California regulators issued a new proposal on net metering that would preserve the retail rate paid to rooftop solar systems. The new rules — combined with the continued federal tax credit — will ensure strong activity in the top solar state.

National groups will now likely reset their sights on local battles around the U.S., said Hamilton.

“The renewable energy industries can turn their focus to state and local policies, siting and permitting issues, and compliance strategies for the Clean Power Plan,” she said. 

President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law today.

Greentech Media

Errol Paisley (third left) of Stony Hill, St Andrew, accepts from Joshua Polacheck, counsellor for Public Affairs at the United States (US) Embassy, the $150,000 reward for the community’s winning effort of collecting 1,250 pounds of PET bottles in less than a month during Operation Clean Sweep. Also sharing in the occasion are project director Stephen Newland (second left) and Dr Kwame Emmanuel, global change co-ordiantor, during Wednesday’s prize-giving ceremony at the US, Embassy, Liguanea, St Andrew.

Addressing the issue of global climate change in a meaningful way can begin with small actions which, together, will have a big impact on containing carbon emissions, according to Joshua Polacheck, counsellor for public affairs at the United States (US) Embassy in Jamaica.

“People don’t think about it, but when you take a plastic bottle and just chuck it into the landfill or into the countryside and it ends up incinerated, you are adding to all the other carbons and other greenhouse effects, but if you recycle it, you are actually helping, in your own small part, to keep the global climate within manageable levels,” he pointed out on Wednesday.

“People may think, ‘oh, this is just a small local thing’, a question of beautification and resource use (but), it’s actually part of that small step that each of us needs to take to change our behaviour to help combat global climate change,” the State Department official told the Operation Clean Sweep prize-giving ceremony at the US Embassy, Liguanea, St Andrew.

Polacheck told participants in the recently concluded pilot project, under which community members from Rae Town, Kingston, Stony Hill, St Andrew, and Gregory Park, St Catherine were trained in solid waste best practices, that they needed to make climate change a personal concern.

“We think that for all countries, especially regional leaders like Jamaica and other small island developing states like the rest of CARICOM, like the countries in the South Pacific, it should be a very personal issue. It’s also a very personal issue for the United States,” he disclosed.

While it may not be something that comes readily to mind, the extensive coastline of the United States’ mainland, as well as the location of offshore territories such as Hawaii, makes the country and its citizens very vulnerable to the fallout from climate change, Polacheck disclosed.

He explained that the state of Arizona, which has extensive desert terrain, has had one of the worst droughts in a century, due mainly to the recent increase in global average temperatures.

Reducing The Fallout

With the recent international agreement on reducing carbon emission struck at the Conference of Parties (COP) 21, in Paris, presenting an opportunity for the world at large, the United States of America, which has taken a leadership role, will be looking to ramp up its collaboration with Jamaica on containing and reducing the fallout from climate change, especially at the grass-roots level.

“So the efforts that we’re making globally are going be part of the efforts we are doing on a bilateral level locally, here with Jamaica,” said Polacheck.

Meanwhile, Stephen Newland, project director for the pilot phase of Operation Clean Sweep, commended members from three select communities for their success in putting to good use the training in solid-waste management.

Residents of Stony Hill, St Andrew, took the top prize of $150,000 for the winning effort of collecting 1,250 pounds of PET bottles in less than a month.

With an average of 33 eight-ounce bottles weighing a pound, and 3,300 bottles estimated at 100lb, the number of bottles collected in and around the community since November 13 was mind-boggling.

For their efforts, residents of Rae Town, Kingston, who logged just about 200 pounds of bottles less than the winners, received $50,000, with Gregory Park, St Catherine, being the other community.

Dr Kwame Emmanuel, USAID/COMET 11’s global change coordinator, pointed to the other significant benefits of plastic-bottle collection and recycling beyond the monetary gains.

“For COMET (Community Empowerment and Transfor-mation), Operation Clean Sweep facilitated another opportunity to bolster social cohesion through the implementation of an environmental activity. The project also provided the communities with a social entrepreneurship idea, which will help to tackle the solid waste management crisis. Moving forward, it is hoped that the management team not only takes the consideration of lessons learnt during this short pilot, but also integrates the other two Rs – reduce and reuse – into the project.”

The Gleaner